shef: fy 2015 - welcome | sheeosheeo.org/sites/default/files/project-files/sheeo_fy15... · ·...

SHEF: FY 2015 STATE HIGHER EDUCATION FINANCE

SHEEO: STATE HIGHER EDUCATION FINANCE: FY 2015 2

© 2016 State Higher Education Executive Officers

The State Higher Education Executive Officers (SHEEO) is the national association of the chief executives of statewide governing, policy, and coordinating boards of postsecondary education. Founded in 1954, SHEEO serves its members as an advocate for state policy leadership, as a liaison between states and the federal government, as a vehicle for learning from and collaborating with peers, and as a source of information and analysis on educational and public policy issues. SHEEO seeks to advance public policies and educational practices to achieve more widespread access and successful participation in higher education, more new discoveries through research, and more applications of knowledge that improve the quality of human lives.

An electronic version of this report, State Higher Education Finance FY 2015, and numerous supplementary tables containing extensive state-level data are available at www.sheeo.org. These may be freely used with appropriate attribution and citation. In addition, core data and derived variables used in the SHEF study for fiscal years 1993 through 2015 are available on the SHEEO website and also through the National Center for Higher Education Management Systems (NCHEMS) sponsored Information Center for State Higher Education Policymaking and Analysis website at www.higheredinfo.org.

http://www.sheeo.org

http://www.higheredinfo.org


ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

We are pleased to present the thirteenth annual SHEEO State Higher Education Finance Survey (SHEF) study of state support for higher education. For the second consecutive year, we continue to make improvements to the look, feel, and presentation of the SHEF report and through additional features on the SHEF webpage (www.sheeo.org/shef). We hope these changes provide additional utility as SHEF becomes a resource used year round by staff at our member agencies, policymakers, researchers, and the media who report on higher education issues. Of course, SHEF’s underlying data provide the real strength of this project and no changes were made to the data or its basic presentation in the report. SHEEO developed the SHEF study building directly on a twenty-five-year effort by Kent Halstead, an analyst and scholar of state policy for higher education, and the SHEF dataset now extends from 1980 to 2015.

SHEEO is deeply indebted to the staff of state higher education agencies who annually provide the state-level data essential for the preparation of this report. Without their diligence and commitment, this project would not be possible. We also acknowledge and greatly appreciate the input and suggestions from many state higher education finance officers (SHEFOs); Dr. James Palmer at Illinois State University, who heads up the Grapevine survey; and the broader higher education community who utilize SHEF.

Sophia Laderman, a new data analyst at SHEEO, managed the data collection process along with the quality control and analysis of data in order to assemble the SHEF report while Andrew Carlson was on family leave. She contributed greatly to this year’s project and provided a fresh perspective on the process we go through each year to prepare the report. After welcoming twins into his family, Andrew Carlson returned to SHEEO and was the principal author along with Sophia on this year’s report.

We are also appreciative and acknowledge the dedication and professionalism of John Armstrong, who contributed to the presentation of the interactive data components on our SHEF webpage (www.sheeo.org/shef), and Gloria Auer, who provided editorial support during the writing of this report. Finally, Andy Sherman, with Can of Creative (www.canofcreative.com), provided the graphics and design for the FY 2015 SHEF report and we appreciate his efforts and the final product.

George Pernsteiner President State Higher Education Executive Officers

Peter A. Blake Director, State Council of Higher Education for Virginia Chair, SHEEO Executive Committee

http://www.sheeo.org/shef

http://www.sheeo.org/shef

http://www.canofcreative.com


TABLE OF CONTENTSACKNOWLEDGEMENTS .......................................................................................................................... 3

INDEX OF FIGURES .................................................................................................................................. 5

INDEX OF TABLES .................................................................................................................................... 6

INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................................................7

OVERVIEW AND HIGHLIGHTS ............................................................................................................... 9

MEASURES, METHODS, AND ANALYTICAL TOOLS ........................................................................... 10

Primary SHEF Measures..................................................................................................................................... 10

Adjustments for Comparability ........................................................................................................................11

Financial Data in Perspective: Uses and Cautions .......................................................................................11

REVENUE SOURCES AND USES ............................................................................................................ 14

NATIONAL TRENDS IN ENROLLMENT AND REVENUE ...................................................................... 17

Full-Time Equivalent Enrollment (FTE) ...........................................................................................................21

Educational Appropriations ...............................................................................................................................21

Net Tuition Revenue ........................................................................................................................................... 22

Total Educational Revenue ............................................................................................................................... 23

Case Study — Impact of Recessions .............................................................................................................. 24

Certificate and Degree Completion ............................................................................................................... 27

INTERSTATE COMPARISONS—MAKING SENSE OF MANY VARIABLES ........................................... 29

SHEF Adjustments to Facilitate Interstate Comparisons ...........................................................................29

Comparing States across Single Dimensions or Variables .......................................................................30

Case Study — Kentucky..................................................................................................................................... 35

Case Study — Illinois .......................................................................................................................................... 37

Case Study — Washington, D.C., and Puerto Rico .....................................................................................46

STATE WEALTH, TAXES, AND ALLOCATIONS FOR HIGHER EDUCATION .......................................48

CONCLUSION......................................................................................................................................... 55


1. Public FTE Enrollment and Educational Appropriations per FTE, U.S., FY 1990-2015 ...............................20

2. Net Tuition as a Percent of Public Higher Education Total Educational Revenue, U.S., FY 1990-2015 ................................................................................................................................................................22

3. Case Study–Impact of Recessions Count of States Increasing or Decreasing Appropriations in Constant Dollars per FTE, FY 1990-2015 ................................................................................................................................................................26

4. Total Degree and Certificate Completions by Level and SHEF FTE, CY 2004-2014 ...................................28

5. Degree and Certificate Completions per 100 SHEF FTE, CY 2004-2014 ......................................................28

6. Public Higher Education Full-time Equivalent (FTE) Enrollment: Percent Change, FY 2010-2015 .........30

7. Public Higher Education Educational Appropriations per FTE: Percent Change, FY 2010-2015 .............33

8. Case Study–Kentucky Budget Challenges for Postsecondary Institutions Cumulative Impact 2008-2015 (Dollars in Millions) .......................................................................................................................................................36

9. Case Study–Illinois State Funding for Higher Education, FY 2007-2015.............................................................................................38

10. Case Study–Illinois Percent of Total Higher Education Funding Allocated to Retirement System, FY 2007-2015 ..................38

11. Net Tuition as a Percent of Total Educational Revenue, FY 2015 .....................................................................40

12. Total Educational Revenue per FTE: Percent Change, FY 2010-2015 ............................................................42

13. Educational Appropriations per FTE (Adjusted) – Difference from U.S. Average, FY 2015 .......................44

14. Total Educational Revenue per FTE (Adjusted) – Difference from U.S. Average, FY 2015.........................45

15. Higher Education Support per Capita by State, FY 2014 .................................................................................... 53

16. Higher Education Support per $1,000 of Personal Income by State, FY 2014 ............................................. 53

17. Percent of Tax Revenues Allocated to Higher Education, FY 2013 ..................................................................54

INDEX OF FIGURES


INDEX OF TABLES

1. State and Local Support: Distribution of Sources and Uses, U.S., FY 2010-2015 (Current Dollars, in Millions) ....................................................................................................................................... 16

2. Impact of Inflation and Enrollment on Higher Education Finance, U.S., FY 1990-2015 ............................ 18

3. Case Study–Impact of Recessions Change in U.S. Educational Appropriations Per FTE, FY 1990-2015 ................................................................................................................................................................25

4. Public Higher Education Full-time Equivalent (FTE) Enrollment .......................................................................31

5. Educational Appropriations per FTE (Constant Adjusted 2015 Dollars)..........................................................34

6. Public Higher Education Net Tuition Revenue per FTE (Constant Adjusted 2015 Dollars) ........................ 41

7. Total Educational Revenue per FTE (Constant Adjusted 2015 Dollars) ...........................................................43

8. Case Study–Washington, D.C. and Puerto Rico Components of Education Revenue, FY 2011-2015 ............................................................................................ 47

9. State Wealth, Tax Revenue, Effective Tax Rates, and Higher Education Allocation; U.S., 2003-2013 (Current Unadjusted Dollars) ......................................................................................................49

10. Tax Revenues, Taxable Resources, and Effective Tax Rates by State, FY 2013 ..............................................50

11. Perspectives on State and Local Government Higher Education Funding Effort by State, FY 2014 and FY 2013 .................................................................................................................................................... 52


INTRODUCTION

Financing higher education requires political leaders, policymakers, and educators to address broad public policy questions, including:

• What level of state funding for colleges and universities is necessary to maintain the economic and social well-being of its citizenry and ensure the United States remains globally competitive?

• How do state funding levels and the correlation between state funding and reliance on tuition revenue at public institutions of higher education influence the implementation of state and national completion/attainment goals?

• How should state funding be distributed? What is the impact of implementing and allocating outcomes-based funding models on institutional behavior and performance?

• How can states balance the need for higher education support with the needs of other major state programs given limited resources and budgetary pressures, especially as the demands and obligations of other major budget drivers increase faster than overall state revenues?

• What tuition levels are appropriate given the costs of higher education, its benefits to individuals and to the general public, and the desirability of encouraging participation and improving degree and certificate attainment? How do changes to tuition policy, rates, and the impact of student financial aid on tuition pricing impact participation, access, and ultimately attainment?

• What level of student financial assistance is necessary to provide meaningful educational opportunities for traditionally underserved students and students from low- and moderate-income families?

• How might colleges and universities use available resources to increase productivity without impairing the quality of student services and student learning? What levels of productivity and efficiency should we expect from an industry whose costs are primarily driven by personnel needs?

As the cost of college rises for students and families along with the potential economic benefit of earning a quality credential or degree, the economic risk of attempting postsecondary education also increases. Greater attention to these costs and benefits influences the environment in which political leaders, policymakers, and educators must address the issues and questions listed above.


The State Higher Education Finance (SHEF) report is produced annually by the State Higher Education Executive Officers Association (SHEEO) to broaden understanding of the context and consequences of multiple decisions made every year in every state in each of these areas. No single report can provide definitive answers to these broad and fundamental questions of public policy, but the SHEF report provides important context, trend analysis, and information to help inform such decisions. The report includes:

• An Overview and Highlights of national trends and the current status of state funding for higher education;

• An explanation of the Measures, Methods, and Analytical Tools used in this report;

• A description of the Revenue Sources and Uses for higher education, including state tax and nontax revenues, local tax support, tuition revenue, and the proportion of this funding available for general educational support;

• An analysis of National Trends in Enrollment and Revenue; in particular, changes over time in the public resources available for general operating support;

• Interstate Comparisons—Making Sense of Many Variables, using tables, charts, and graphs to compare data among states and over time;

• Indicators of relative State Wealth, Tax Effort, and Allocations for Higher Education, along with ways to take these factors into account when making interstate comparisons; and

• A series of Case Studies that adds important context and understanding to the data presented in the report.

The SHEF report provides the earliest possible review of state and local support, tuition revenue, and enrollment trends for the most recently completed fiscal year.

NOTE: Generally, years referenced in the body of this publication refer to state fiscal years (FY), which commonly start July 1 and run through June 30 of the following calendar year. For example, FY 2015 includes July 2014 through June 2015. All enrollments are full-time equivalent for an academic year (including summer term). National averages are calculated using the sum of all of the states. For example, the national average per FTE expenditure is calculated as the total of all states’ expenditures divided by the total of all states’ FTEs.


OVERVIEW AND HIGHLIGHTS

In 2015, states invested $81.8 billion in higher education, a 6 percent increase over the prior year in unadjusted terms (see Table 1). Total state funding for higher education increased for the third straight year from a low of $71.9 billion in 2012. Local governments invested $9.1 billion from property tax revenue in 2015 primarily for local district community colleges. Although down from the prior year’s level, this investment is above that of 2012, the low point of the Great Recession. Initial estimates of 2016 state appropriations for higher education from the Grapevine survey show another increase of 4.1 percent. These data all point to continued economic recovery and reinvestment in higher education by state and local governments on the whole, although they mask wide variation among the states.

Of the $90.9 billion that state and local governments invested in higher education, the majority ($88 billion) went to support public higher education (see Table 2). This was an increase of 5 percent from the prior year in unadjusted terms. In addition, public institutions collected net tuition revenue of $66.9 billion in 2015, up 3 percent from the prior year. Adjusting for inflation, state and local support grew 3 percent between 2014 and 2015, while net tuition revenue grew slightly at 1 percent.

To fully understand the revenue picture for higher education in the United States, both inflation and enrollment must be considered. For the fourth year in a row, FTE enrollment declined and is now 11,136,560 student FTE (see Table 4). This enrollment decline may be further evidence of continued economic recovery as more potential students are able to find employment. Despite these four years of declines, FTE enrollment remains 8.6 percent higher than in 2008, right before the Great Recession began.

The 1.1 percent decline in FTE enrollment combined with a 4.1 percent increase in appropriations means that constant dollar educational appropriations from state and local governments per student increased 5.2 percent to a current level of $6,966 (see Figure 1). This is the third year in a row of increased educational appropriations per student, after four years of declines in 2009 through 2012. Continued increases are more evidence that economic recovery following the Great Recession continues, but educational appropriations per student remain 15.3 percent below the 2008 pre-recession high.

Reliance on net tuition revenue reached its peak of 47.8 percent in 2013 (see Figure 2). Since that time, net tuition revenue as a share of total educational revenue declined to 47.2 percent in 2013 and 46.5 percent in 2015. Although this recent trend is positive, reliance on tuition remains significantly higher than it was before the Great Recession. In 2008, the share was 35.8 percent.

The total educational revenue per FTE available from educational appropriations and net tuition revenue is now above pre-recession levels, reaching $12,907 in 2015 (see Table 7). In other words, three years of increases in per student appropriations—along with increases in tuition revenue—has returned funding to the levels prevailing before the Great Recession began. While this is true for the national numbers, there is wide variance among the states. In fact, 19 states remain below their 2008 pre-recession levels.

The data presented throughout the SHEF report largely indicate economic recovery and reinvestment in higher education by state and local governments and decreasing reliance on tuition revenue as a share of total educational revenue. This report illustrates the long-term patterns, shorter-term changes, and state-level variables affecting the resources available to support higher education between 1990 and 2015.


MEASURES, METHODS, AND ANALYTICAL TOOLS

PRIMARY SHEF MEASURES

To assemble the annual SHEF report, SHEEO collects data on all state and local revenues used to support higher education, including revenues from taxes, lottery receipts, royalty revenue, and state-funded endowments. It also identifies the major purposes for which these public revenues are provided, including general institutional operating expenses, student financial assistance, and support for centrally-funded research, medical education, and extension programs. Analysis of these data yields the following key indicators:

• State and Local Support consists of state tax appropriations and local tax support plus additional nontax funds (e.g., lottery revenue) that support or benefit higher education, and funds appropriated to other state entities for specific higher education expenditures or benefits (e.g., employee fringe benefits disbursed by the state treasurer). State and local support for 2009–2012 also includes federal American Reinvestment and Recovery Act (ARRA) revenue provided to stabilize these sources of revenue for higher education.

• Educational Appropriations are that part of state and local support available for public higher education operating expenses. They are defined to exclude spending for research, agricultural, and medical education, as well as support for independent institutions or students attending them. Since funding for medical education and other major non-instructional purposes varies substantially across states, excluding these funding components helps to improve the comparability of state-level data on a per student basis.

• Net Tuition Revenue is the gross amount of tuition and fees, less state and institutional financial aid, tuition waivers or discounts, and medical student tuition and fees. This is a measure of the resources available from tuition and fees to support instruction and related operations at public higher education institutions and includes revenue from in-state and out-of-state students as well as undergraduates and graduate students. Net tuition revenue generally reflects the share of instructional support received from students and their families, although it is not the same as and does not take into account many factors that need to be considered in analyzing the “net price” students pay for higher education.1

1 SHEF does not provide a measure of “net price,” a term that generally refers to the cost of attending college after deducting assistance provided by federal, state, and institutional grants. SHEF does not deduct federal grant assistance (primarily from Pell Grants) from gross tuition revenue, since these are non-state funds that substitute, at least in part, for non-tuition costs borne by students. Non-tuition costs (room and board, transportation, books, and incidentals) typically total $10,000 or more annually in addition to tuition costs. This requires students with a low expected family contribution (most Pell recipients) to augment federal grants with a substantial contribution from part-time work or loans, even at a comparatively low-tuition public institution. In addition, the availability of federal tuition tax credits since 1999 has helped reduce “net price” for middle- and lower-middle-income students. While these tax credits have no impact on the net tuition revenue received by institutions, they do reduce the “net price” paid by students. SHEF’s net tuition revenue statistic is not a measure of “net price,” but a measure of the revenue that institutions receive from tuition. It is a straightforward measure of the proportion of public institution instructional costs borne by students and families. Measures of net price for the student need to include non-tuition costs and all forms of aid.


• Total Educational Revenue is the sum of educational appropriations and net tuition revenue excluding any tuition revenue used for capital and debt service. It measures the amount of revenue available to public institutions to support instruction (excluding medical students). Very few public institutions have significant non-restricted revenue from gifts and endowments to support instruction. In some states, a portion of the net tuition revenue is used to fund capital debt service and similar non-operational activities. These sums are excluded from calculations used to determine total educational revenue.

• Full-Time Equivalent Enrollment (FTE) is a measure of enrollment equal to one student enrolled full time for one academic year, calculated from the aggregate number of enrolled credit hours (including summer session enrollments). SHEF excludes most non-credit or non-degree program enrollments; medical school enrollments also are excluded for the reasons mentioned above. The use of FTE enrollment reduces multiple types of enrollment to a single measure in order to compare changes in total enrollment across states and sectors, and to provide a straightforward method for analyzing revenue on a per student basis.

ADJUSTMENTS FOR COMPARABILITY

SHEF’s analytic methods are designed to make basic data about higher education finance as comparable as possible across states and over time. Toward that end, financial indicators are provided on a per student basis (using FTE enrollment as the denominator), and the State Higher Education Finance (SHEF) report employs three adjustments to the “raw data” provided by states:

• Cost of Living Adjustment (COLA)—to account for cost of living differences among the states;

• Enrollment Mix Index (EMI)—to adjust for differences in the mix of enrollment and costs among types of institutions with different costs across the states; and

• Higher Education Cost Adjustment (HECA)—to adjust for inflation over time.

Technical Papers A and B on the SHEF webpage (www.sheeo.org/shef-projectInformation) describe these adjustments in some detail. Tables provided in these technical papers show the actual effects of the COLA and EMI adjustments on the data provided by individual states, as well as the HECA adjustment from current to constant dollars (inflation-adjusted dollar values that are made annually to reflect inflation).

FINANCIAL DATA IN PERSPECTIVE: USES AND CAUTIONS

Higher education financial analysis is essential, but using financial data can be tricky and even deceptive. Data providers often adjust their state data from prior years as more accurate information becomes available. This section is intended to help readers and users focus on some of the core purposes of interstate financial analysis, while being cognizant of limitations inherent in the data and methods.

Comparing institutions and states is a difficult task. Consider how different the states are, even after adjusting for population size. They vary in climate, energy costs, housing costs, population

http://www.sheeo.org/shef-projectInformation


densities, growth rates, resource bases, and the mix of industries and enterprises driving their local economies. Some have a relatively homogeneous, well-educated population, while others have large numbers of traditionally underserved populations and recent immigrants. Most states have pockets of poverty, but these vary in their extent and concentration. Finally, the extent and rate at which these socioeconomic and demographic factors are changing also varies across states.

State higher education systems also differ. Some have many small institutions, others fewer but larger institutions. Some have many independent (privately controlled) institutions; others rely almost entirely on public institutions, with varying combinations of research universities, community colleges, and four-year universities. Across states, tuition policies and rates vary, as do the amounts and types of financial aid, which in turn affect enrollment patterns. Some states have multiple institutions that offer high-cost programs (e.g., in the sciences or engineering), while others provide substantially more funding for research or emphasize undergraduate education.

In addition to these differences, technical factors can distort interstate comparisons. As one example, states differ in how they finance employee benefits, including retirement. Some pay all retirement costs to employee accounts when the benefits are earned, while others defer part of the costs until the benefits are paid. Some pay benefit costs through a state agency, while others pay from institutional budgets. Many studies of state finance try to account for such factors, but no study, including this one, can assure flawless comparisons.

The SHEF report seeks to provide—to the extent possible—comparable data and reliable methods for examining many of the most fundamental financial issues facing higher education, particularly at the state level. Its purpose is to help educators and policymakers:

• Examine whether or not state funding for colleges and universities has kept pace with enrollment growth and inflationary cost increases;

• Focus on the major purposes of state spending on higher education and how these investments are allocated;

• Assess trends in the proportion or “share” that students and families are paying for higher education;

• See how funding of their state’s higher education system compares to that in other states; and

• Assess the capacity of a state’s economy and tax policies to generate revenue to support public priorities such as higher education.

While making finance data cleaner, consistent, and more comparable, SHEF’s analytic methods also add complexity. All comparisons can claim only to be “valid, more or less,” and SHEF is no exception. Analysts with knowledge of particular states probably know of other factors that should be taken into account or that could mislead comparative analysis. SHEEO continues to welcome all efforts to improve the quality of its data and analytical tools. We urge readers and users to help us improve both methods and understanding.

Many educators and policymakers (and segments of the public) may look to interstate financial analysis to determine “appropriate” or “sufficient” funding for higher education, but sufficiency is meaningful only in the context of a particular state’s objectives and circumstances. State leaders, educators, and others must work together to set goals and develop strategies to achieve those goals, and then determine the amount and allocation of funds required for success.


Whether the objective is to sustain competitive advantage or to improve the postsecondary education system, money is always an issue. With additional resources, educators can serve more students at higher levels of quality; but additional spending does not necessarily yield proportional increases in quantity or quality.2 Efficiency is a thorny issue in education finance; educators can always find good uses for additional resources, and resources are always limited. If educators and policymakers can agree that it is highly desirable to achieve widespread educational attainment more cost-effectively, they can work together to increase educational productivity. Making authentic productivity gains requires sustained effort and a combination of investing in priorities and finding efficiencies through incentives, reallocation, and innovation. And such an effort cannot focus solely on the numbers of degrees but must also consider measures (direct and indirect) of student learning and achievement.

The question, “How much funding is enough?” has no easy answer at the state or national level. Educators and policymakers must work together to address such key questions as:

• What kind of higher education system do we want?

• What will it take, given our circumstances, to establish and sustain such a system?

• Are we making effective use of our current investments?

• Where would an incremental or reallocated dollar lead to improved outcomes and help to meet state and national goals?

Good financial data and analysis are essential for addressing such questions.

2 Kelly, P. and Jones, D. (2005). A New Look at the Institutional Component of Higher Education Finance: A Guide for Evaluating Performance Relative to Financial Resources. Boulder, CO: NCHEMS.


REVENUE SOURCES AND USES

Support for higher education represents the third largest major budget area of state spending from state and local tax sources. According to the National Association of State Budget Officers (NASBO), 13.3 percent of state funds are allocated to higher education.3 It is generally understood that state funding for higher education acts as the “balance wheel” during economic downturns with funding reductions typically greater than reductions in other budget areas. Historically, this has been due, in part, to the fact that higher education funding reductions can be offset (in whole or in part) with money from tuition increases.

Table 1 below presents state and local support in current unadjusted dollars for fiscal years 2010 through 2015. It shows the lingering impacts of the Great Recession that began in 2009 and evidence of continued recovery of state and local funding sources provided to higher education. As shown in the table, state funding grew 6 percent in 2015 to $81.8 billion from $77.2 billion in 2014. Local funding fell 3.2 percent over the same time period with total funding from both sources up 5 percent to $90.9 billion. These funding amounts are not adjusted for inflation or for enrollment. Later sections of the report will show the impact of these two factors on state and local funding for higher education. In total, these are the largest funding levels over the five-year time frame presented in Table 1 and indicate the third consecutive year of continued economic recovery after the Great Recession.

This section provides data and analysis of the sources of state and local government support for higher education, focusing on the most recent five-year trend (2010-2015). It also provides an overview of the major uses of that support including state support for:

1. Research, agricultural extension, and medical education;

2. Student financial aid;

3. Funding for independent private, nonprofit institutions of higher education;

4. Non-credit and continuing education; and

5. General operations support at public institutions of higher education.

As shown in Table 1, sources for the $90.9 billion in state and local government support for higher education in 2015 included the following:

• State sources accounted for $81.8 billion (90.2 percent) with $78 billion of that amount from tax appropriations in 2015. Tax appropriations accounted for 85.8 percent of the total state and local funding provided to higher education, and grew by 6.4 percent over 2014 levels.

• Nontax appropriations, mostly from state lotteries, continued to grow and exceeded $3.1 billion (3.4 percent) in 2015.

3 Sigritz, B. (2015). State Expenditure Report Summary: Examining Fiscal 2013-2015 State Spending. Washington, DC: NASBO.


• Local appropriations to support community colleges were provided in 29 states and made up 10 percent of the total support in 2015. At $9.1 billion, local appropriations fell in 2015 from a high of $9.4 billion in 2014. Local funding actually grew during the Great Recession and through 2014, and may now be leveling off.4

• State-funded endowment earnings accounted for another 0.5 percent.

• Non-appropriated support, often from oil and mineral extraction fees or royalties, accounted for 0.1 percent of the total funding provided by state and local governments.

Major uses of the $90.9 billion in 2015 state and local government funding for higher education included the following:

• $70.6 billion (77.7 percent) for general operating expenses of public institutions of higher education.

• $10.5 billion (11.5 percent) went to special purpose appropriations for research, agricultural extension programs, and medical education.

• $9.3 billion (10.2 percent) was allocated to state-funded student financial aid programs. The bulk of this aid goes to students attending public institutions within a state. In fact, state funding for financial aid programs at public institutions increased 5.6 percent in 2015 to $6.9 billion and now represents 7.6 percent of the total funding provided by state and local government sources. In the pre-recession high point of 2008, states allocated $5 billion to financial aid at public institutions. Throughout the downturn, states largely protected these investments and overall funding in this area has grown in each of the last three years.

• Fourteen states provided funding for operations at independent institutions and this amount totaled $2.3 billion in 2015.

• $3.3 billion (0.4 percent) was spent on non-credit and continuing education programs in the states.

4 A reduction of $466 million in local funds to the Wisconsin Technical College System caused a decrease from 2014-2015 (state appropriations increased in Wisconsin to substitute for this loss of local funding). Without this change in Wisconsin, local funding would continue to increase for 2015.


TABLE 1STATE AND LOCAL SUPPORT: DISTRIBUTION OF SOURCES AND USES, U.S., FY 2010-2015 (CURRENT DOLLARS, IN MILLIONS)

SOURCE 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 20152015 %

DISTRIBUTION

STATE SUPPORT

ARRA FUNDS $4,495 $2,840 $117 - - N/A N/A

TAX APPROPRIATIONS $70,692 $72,170 $68,155 $68,598 $73,331 $78,019 85.8%

ALL NON-TAX SUPPORT $2,818 $2,989 $2,949 $2,922 $3,021 $3,127 3.4%

NON-APPROPRIATED SUPPORT $79 $79 $89 $82 $88 $93 0.1%

STATE FUNDED ENDOWMENT EARNINGS $401 $387 $471 $498 $530 $483 0.5%

OTHER1 $254 $539 $257 $266 $312 $201 0.2%

FUNDS NOT AVAILABLE FOR USE2 $394 $833 $104 $72 $81 $76 0.1%

STATE SUPPORT TOTAL $78,344 $78,170 $71,934 $72,295 $77,202 $81,847 90.2%

LOCAL TAX APPROPRIATIONS $8,697 $8,821 $8,743 $9,208 $9,368 $9,074 10.0%

TOTAL $87,041 $86,991 $80,676 $81,503 $86,570 $90,921 100.2%

USES

RESEARCH-AGRICULTURE-MEDICAL (RAM) $10,263 $10,183 $9,853 $10,077 $10,422 $10,472 11.5%

PUBLIC STUDENT AID3 $5,706 $6,479 $6,372 $6,588 $6,572 $6,940 7.6%

INDEPENDENT STUDENT AID4 $2,369 $2,342 $2,305 $2,256 $2,282 $2,303 2.5%

OUT-OF-STATE STUDENT AID $38 $36 $35 $35 $34 $34 0.0%

INDEPENDENT INSTITUTIONS $214 $183 $182 $178 $190 $211 0.2%

NON-CREDIT AND CONTINUING EDUCATION $340 $354 $330 $335 $327 $328 0.4%

GENERAL PUBLIC OPERATIONS $68,111 $67,414 $61,599 $62,034 $66,743 $70,634 77.7%

TOTAL $87,041 $86,991 $80,676 $81,503 $86,570 $90,921 100.0%

Percentages may not equal 100 due to rounding.

NOTES: 1) “Other” includes multi-year appropriations from previous years and funds not classified in one of the other source categories.

2) “Funds Not Available for Use” includes appropriations that were returned to the state, and portions of multi-year appropriations to be spread over other years.

3) “Public Student Aid” is state appropriated student financial aid for public institution tuition and fees. Includes aid appropriated outside the recognized state student aid program(s). Some respondents could not separate tuition aid from aid for living expenses.

4) “Independent Student Aid” is state appropriated student financial aid for students attending independent institutions in the state.

SOURCE: State Higher Education Executive Officers


NATIONAL TRENDS IN ENROLLMENT AND REVENUE

This section highlights national trends in higher education enrollment and the relationship between these trends and available revenues (and other components of financing). These “national” trends are actually composites of 50 unique and varied state trends, which are shown in the following section, Interstate Comparisons–Making Sense of Many Variables. For example, “national educational appropriations per FTE” is the sum of all educational appropriations divided by the sum of all net FTE across the 50 states. It is not the average of each of the 50 states’ individual per-FTE calculations. Please refer to the Methods, Measures, and Analytical Tools section for more information on the metrics presented here and the adjustment factors utilized.

Table 2 presents a 25-year look at the SHEF Higher Education Finance Indicators and shows the impact of inflation and enrollment over time on higher education support for public institutions. It is a starting point for understanding the national story of public higher education funding from state and local sources, tuition revenue from students and families, and enrollment over time. The years 1990, 2005, 2010, 2014, and 2015 are shown, allowing for 25-year, 10-year, 5-year, and 1-year comparisons. The first section of the table shows unadjusted current dollars. Section two shows the impact of inflation by presenting the data in constant 2015 terms, while the third section presents the impact of both inflation and enrollment growth over time on these measures.


TABLE 2IMPACT OF INFLATION AND ENROLLMENT ON HIGHER EDUCATION FINANCE, U.S., FY 1990-2015

1990 2005 2010 2014 20151 YEAR

CHANGE5 YEAR

CHANGE10 YEAR CHANGE

25 YEAR CHANGE

CURRENT UNADJUSTED DOLLARS (MILLIONS)

ARRA FUNDS - - $4,495 - - N/A N/A N/A N/A

STATE $38,006 $62,605 $70,889 $74,368 $78,971 6% 11% 26% 108%

LOCAL $2,791 $6,616 $8,697 $9,368 $9,074 -3% 4% 37% 225%

[A] STATE AND LOCAL SUPPORT FOR PUBLIC HIGHER EDUCATION

$40,797 $69,221 $84,080 $83,737 $88,046 5% 5% 27% 116%

[B] RESEARCH- AGRICULTURE- MEDICAL (RAM)

$7,026 $9,388 $10,263 $10,422 $10,472 0% 2% 12% 49%

[C] EDUCATIONAL APPROPRIATIONS [A-B]

$33,771 $59,833 $73,817 $73,315 $77,573 6% 5% 30% 130%

[D] NET TUITION $11,257 $33,896 $50,472 $64,897 $66,890 3% 33% 97% 494%

[E] TUITION AND FEES USED FOR DEBT SERVICE 1

- $317 $529 $701 $723 3% 37% 128% N/A

TOTAL EDUCATIONAL REVENUE [C+D-E]

$45,028 $93,729 $124,289 $138,212 $144,463 5% 16% 54% 219%

CONSTANT ADJUSTED DOLLARS (MILLIONS)

ARRA FUNDS - - $4,935 - - N/A N/A N/A N/A

STATE $75,953 $77,964 $77,834 $75,602 $78,971 4% 1% 1% 4%

LOCAL $5,578 $8,239 $9,549 $9,524 $9,074 -5% -5% 10% 63%

[A] STATE AND LOCAL SUPPORT FOR PUBLIC HIGHER EDUCATION

$81,531 $86,203 $92,318 $85,125 $88,046 3% -5% 2% 8%

[B] RESEARCH- AGRICULTURE- MEDICAL (RAM)

$14,041 $11,691 $11,268 $10,595 $10,472 -1% -7% -10% -25%

[C] EDUCATIONAL APPROPRIATIONS [A-B]

$67,490 $74,512 $81,049 $74,531 $77,573 4% -4% 4% 15%

[D] NET TUITION $22,496 $42,212 $55,417 $65,973 $66,890 1% 21% 58% 197%

[E] TUITION AND FEES USED FOR DEBT SERVICE1 - $395 $580 $713 $723 1% 25% 83% N/A

TOTAL EDUCATIONAL REVENUE [C+D-E]

$89,986 $116,329 $135,886 $139,791 $143,740 3% 6% 24% 60%

CONSTANT ADJUSTED DOLLARS (MILLIONS, PER FTE)

FULL-TIME EQUIVALENT ENROLLMENT (FTE)2 7,768,621 9,895,854 11,358,769 11,258,230 11,136,560 -1% -2% 13% 43%

EDUCATIONAL APPROPRIATIONS PER FTE

$8,688 $7,530 $7,135 $6,620 $6,966 5% -2% -7% -20%

NET TUITION PER FTE $2,896 $4,266 $4,879 $5,860 $6,006 2% 23% 41% 107%

TOTAL EDUCATIONAL REVENUE PER FTE

$11,583 $11,755 $11,963 $12,417 $12,907 4% 8% 10% 11%

NOTES: 1) Tuition and fees used for debt service were not reported in 1990.

2) FTE enrollment excludes medical school enrollments.



Over the last 25 years, total state and local support for public higher education grew 116 percent in unadjusted terms from $40.8 billion in 1990 to $88 billion in 2015. Adjusting for inflation and presenting each year in 2015 terms takes 1990 state and local funding to $81.5 billion, meaning that in constant dollars, funding increased 8 percent over this time frame. Between 2014 and 2015, state and local funding grew 5 percent to $88 billion. When inflation is considered, growth in real terms declines to 3 percent, still a substantial year-over-year increase in total support.

General operations at public institutions of higher education are funded from state and local support and tuition revenue. The SHEF report tracks net tuition revenue over time and shows that overall net tuition revenue has grown 197 percent in constant dollars since 1990. This growth is due in large part to enrollment growth of 43 percent from 7.8 million to 11.1 million student FTE between 1990 and 2015. Put simply, significantly more students are paying tuition charges. In addition to enrollment growth, net tuition revenue will also increase due to increases in tuition rates and changes in enrollment mix (e.g., more non-resident students or more graduate students paying higher rates).

The third section of Table 2 summarizes the impact of inflation and enrollment of higher education funding. Since 1990, student FTE enrollment has increased 43 percent, while educational appropriations per FTE have declined 20 percent, meaning state and local funding has not kept up with either inflation or enrollment growth over time. Net tuition revenue per FTE has increased 107 percent since 1990 in constant dollars. Taken together, the sum of educational appropriations and net tuition revenue per FTE has increased 11 percent. In other words, net tuition revenue has now more than made up for the declines in state and local funding per student over the most recent 25-year period. However, as noted later, this is only true in half of all states.

Figures 1 and 2 explore this relationship further. The historical data in Figure 1 (the Wave Chart) demonstrate the relationships between higher education enrollment and revenue over time, especially the impact of the economic cycle on these measures over the last 25 years. Figure 2 (the Tuition Trend Line Chart) tracks the share of total educational revenues from net tuition revenue over time. Figures 1 and 2 also illustrate the longer-term trends.

In the 2010 SHEF report, state and locally financed educational appropriations for public higher education hit the lowest level ($7,135 per FTE in constant 2015 dollars) in a quarter century, driven by accelerating enrollment growth and modest inflation, and the failure of state and local funding to keep pace with either during the previous two years. This downward trend continued in 2011 and 2012 with state and locally financed educational appropriations falling to $6,797 and $6,177 per FTE, respectively. Reversing the annual decline that began in 2009, 2013 educational appropriations per FTE rose to $6,260, a constant dollar increase of $83 (1.3 percent) over 2012, indicating the beginnings of economic recovery. However, this increase was due entirely to enrollment decline. This trend has continued. In 2014, educational appropriations per FTE grew more rapidly to $6,620 (5.8 percent) due in part to an enrollment decline of 1.0 percent over 2013. 2015 shows a second year of steady improvement with educational appropriations per FTE increasing 5.2 percent to $6,966, and enrollment declining another 1 percent, further emphasizing the effects of declining enrollment on the measure of educational appropriations per FTE. Nationwide, state and local support per student remain well below the levels that prevailed prior to the recession.


The Figure 1 Wave Chart provides a 25-year look at each of the four SHEF metrics and Figure 2 provides additional information on net tuition revenue, specifically, the growing reliance on this revenue source:

• Full-time equivalent enrollment (FTE)—the red trend line in the Wave Chart

• Educational appropriations per FTE—the blue bars in the Wave Chart

• Net tuition revenue per FTE—the green bars in the Wave Chart and the trend line in Figure 2

• Total educational revenue per FTE—the total shown by the blue and green bars in the Wave Chart each year

FIGURE 1PUBLIC FTE ENROLLMENT AND EDUCATIONAL APPROPRIATIONS PER FTE, U.S., FY 1990-2015

PUBLIC FTE ENROLLMENT AND EDUCATIONAL APPROPRIATIONS PER FTE, U.S., FY 1990-2015FIGURE 1

$

$2,000

$4,000

$6,000

$8,000

$10,000

$12,000

$14,000

2.0

4.0

6.0

8.0

10.0

12.0

14.0

199

0

199

1

199

2

199

3

199

4

199

5

199

6

199

7

199

8

199

9

20

00

20

01

20

02

20

03

20

04

20

05

20

06

20

07

20

08

20

09

20

10

20

11

20

12

20

13

20

14

20

15

DO

LL

AR

S P

ER

FT

E

PU

BL

IC F

TE

EN

RO

LL

ME

NT

(M

ILLI

ON

S)

0

$8

,44

4

$7,

977

$7,

702

$7,

80

2

$8

,05

7

$8,6

88

$8

,14

4

$8

,44

9

$8

,72

6

$8

,95

2

$8

,86

8

$9

,12

0

$8

,78

8

$8

,13

2

$7,

58

7

$7,

53

0

$7,

89

9

$8

,09

6

$8

,22

0

$7,

68

5

$7,

135

$6

,79

7

$6

,177

$6

,26

0

$6

,62

0

$6

,96

6

$4,

647

$4,

879

$5,

031

$5,

426

$5,

685

$5,

860

$6,

00

6

$3,

901

$4,

104

$4,

266

$4,

553

$4,

627

$4,

556

$3,

773

$3,

827

$3,

852

$3,

855

$3,

668

$3,

801

$3,

816

$2,

896

$2,

988

$3,

230

$3,

435

$3,

555

$3,

648

NOTE: Net tuition revenue used for capital debt service included in the above figures. Constant 2015 dollars adjusted by SHEEO Higher Education Cost Adjustment (HECA).

SOURCE: State Higher Education Executive O�cers

EDUCATIONAL APPROPRIATIONS PER FTE (CONSTANT $)

NET TUITION REVENUE PER FTE(CONSTANT $)

PUBLIC FTE ENROLLMENT(MILLIONS)

NOTE: Net tuition revenue used for capital debt service included in the above figures. Constant 2015 dollars adjusted by SHEEO Higher Education Cost Adjustment (HECA).



FULL-TIME EQUIVALENT ENROLLMENT (FTE)

• Nationally, the explosive enrollment growth during the Great Recession continues to level off as economic recovery continues. After one-year increases of 4.6 percent, 5.9 percent, and 2.9 percent in 2009, 2010, and 2011, respectively, FTE enrollment has now declined slightly in each of the last four years. Most of the decline in FTE enrollment is concentrated in community colleges.

• Due to these declines, 2015 enrollment of 11,136,560 FTE is 2 percent lower than 2010 enrollment, but is slightly higher than in 2008, right before the Great Recession began.

• Enrollment is up 12.5 percent over the last 10 years and 43.4 percent since 1990.

• The rate of enrollment growth normally varies from year to year and state to state in response to the economy and job market as well as underlying demographic factors. During the Great Recession, enrollment growth was more pronounced than during prior downturns. Budget conditions in 2012 and 2013, however, may also have had adverse effects on higher education enrollments. Budget-driven enrollment caps, rapid increases in tuition and fees, and the beginnings of economic recovery may have driven enrollments in 2012 and 2013. The reductions in 2014 and 2015 may be due to the recovering economy.

EDUCATIONAL APPROPRIATIONS

• Constant dollar educational appropriations per FTE (the blue bars in Figure 1) reached a high of $9,120 in 2001.

• Following four years of declines (2002, 2003, 2004, and 2005), per student educational appropriations increased in 2006 and 2007, reaching $8,220 in 2008. Year-over-year declines occurred in each of the next four years with a low of $6,177 in 2012.

• Beginning in 2013, educational appropriations per FTE began to recover, increasing 1.3 percent, 5.8 percent, and 5.2 percent to reach the current level of $6,966 in 2015.

In constant dollars per student, educational appropriations remain below historic levels. Funding is 15.3 percent lower than in 2008 and 20 percent lower than in 1990.


FIGURE 2NET TUITION AS A PERCENT OF PUBLIC HIGHER EDUCATION TOTAL EDUCATIONAL REVENUE, U.S., FY 1990-2015

NET TUITION REVENUE

• Net tuition revenue per student tends to increase most rapidly during periods of recession, shifting more of the cost of higher education to students and families (see Figure 2). Net tuition as a share of total educational revenues grew rapidly during the Great Recession, increasing from 35.8 percent in 2008 to 47.8 percent in 2013. Since then the share from tuition has declined slightly in each of the last two years and stood at 46.5 percent in 2015.

• During economic recessions, student share increases quickly and a new level is established during periods of recovery. Traditionally, the student share has not declined significantly as state and local funding has been restored. It is likely that student share will surpass 50 percent during the next economic downturn.

FIGURE 2

NET TUITION AS A PERCENT OF PUBLIC HIGHER EDUCATION TOTAL EDUCATIONAL REVENUE, U.S., FISCAL 1990-2015

25.0%

26.1%

28.8%

30.8% 31.3% 31.2%31.7%

31.2%30.6% 30.1%

29.3% 29.5%30.3%

35.2%36.3%

36.7%36.5%

47.2%46.5%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

199

0

199

1

199

2

199

3

199

4

199

5

199

6

199

7

199

8

199

9

20

00

20

01

20

02

20

03

20

04

20

05

20

06

20

07

20

08

20

09

20

10

20

11

20

12

20

13

20

14

20

15NOTE: Net tuition revenue used for capital debt service is included in net tuition revenue, but excluded from total educational revenue in calculating the above figures.


RECESSION

32.5%

35.8%

37.8%

40.8%

42.7%

47.0%47.8%

NOTE: Net tuition revenue used for capital debt service is included in net tuition revenue, but excluded from total educational revenue in calculating the above figures.



• 2015 net tuition revenue per student increased to $6,006, up 2.5 percent from 2014. Over the last 25 years, net tuition revenue per student has declined twice and has posted average annual increases of 3.1 percent in real terms.

• The substantial shift of responsibility for financing public higher education toward net tuition (from around 25 percent to nearly 50 percent) since 1990 is a significant change for American higher education.

TOTAL EDUCATIONAL REVENUE

• Total educational revenue per student (the sum of educational appropriations and net tuition revenue) was $12,972 in 2015 and has now reached previous highs. This is due to increases in net tuition revenue and the partial restoration of educational appropriations over the last three years.5 The share of this total from net tuition revenue is 46.5 percent. During the previous high in 2001, this share was 29.5 percent. A significant portion of the growth in educational appropriations is due to the funding situation in Illinois (see Case Study — Illinois).

• Nationwide, increases in net tuition revenue now have more than offset reductions in state and local funding per student. However, the states exhibit wide variance and reductions have been offset in only half of all states.

5 In 2015, Illinois dedicated 44.3% of total educational appropriations ($1.5 billion) to fund their historically underfunded State Universities Retirement System. The situation in Illinois is explained in the Illinois case study (follows later in this report), and adds significantly to the recent increase in educational appropriations.


CASE STUDY — IMPACT OF RECESSIONSTHE ECONOMIC CYCLE’S IMPACT ON HIGHER EDUCATION FUNDING

It is largely understood that higher education funding6 from state government is more impacted by economic changes than other state budget areas. Higher education funding is reduced more significantly during budget shortfalls, and larger increases are seen during periods of economic recovery and growth. This relationship is illustrated clearly in Figures 1 and 2, which show the impact of the economic cycle on educational appropriations, the reliance on tuition revenue sources to cover general operations at public institutions, and enrollment.

Even with the support from the federal government through the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) in 2009-2012, which is included in the SHEF data, educational appropriations per student FTE fell each year during the Great Recession from a high of $8,220 in 2008 to a low of $6,177 in 2012. 2015 represents the third year of increases in per student educational appropriations, reaching the current level of $6,966. Despite these three years of increases, educational appropriations per student remain 15.3 percent below pre-recession levels. The impact of the Great Recession on state and local funding per student was more significant than past recessions, and thus far recovery is proceeding more slowly—at least in terms of returning to pre-recession funding levels.

This case study provides additional context for understanding the Great Recession and subsequent recovery compared to the two prior recessions of the early 1990s and the early 2000s. Table 3 shows the percent change in educational appropriations per FTE since 1990, while Figure 3 shows the number of states that saw reductions in constant dollar per student educational appropriations each year, compared to those states that saw increases.

6 National Association of State Budget Officers. (2015). A Guidebook on State Budgeting for Higher Education. Washington, DC: NASBO.


TABLE 3CASE STUDY–IMPACT OF RECESSIONS CHANGE IN U.S. EDUCATIONAL APPROPRIATIONS PER FTE, FY 1990-2015

YEARU.S. AVERAGE EDUCATIONAL

APPROPRIATIONS PER FTEPERCENT CHANGE FROM

PRIOR YEAR

1990 $8,688 -0.9%

1991 $8,444 -2.8%

1992 $7,977 -5.5%

1993 $7,702 -3.4%

1994 $7,802 1.3%

1995 $8,057 3.3%

1996 $8,144 1.1%

1997 $8,449 3.7%

1998 $8,726 3.3%

1999 $8,952 2.6%

2000 $8,868 -0.9%

2001 $9,120 2.8%

2002 $8,788 -3.6%

2003 $8,132 -7.5%

2004 $7,587 -6.7%

2005 $7,530 -0.8%

2006 $7,899 4.9%

2007 $8,096 2.5%

2008 $8,220 1.5%

2009 $7,685 -6.5%

2010 $7,135 -7.2%

2011 $6,797 -4.7%

2012 $6,177 -9.1%

2013 $6,260 1.3%

2014 $6,620 5.8%

2015 $6,966 5.2%

NOTE: Educational appropriations are a measure of state and local support available for public higher education operating expenses including ARRA funds, and exclude appropriations for independent institutions, financial aid for students attending independent institutions, research, hospitals, and medical education.



FIGURE 3CASE STUDY–IMPACT OF RECESSIONS COUNT OF STATES INCREASING OR DECREASING APPROPRIATIONS IN CONSTANT DOLLARS PER FTE, FY 1990-2015

In 1992, the worst year of the early ‘90s recession, 39 states experienced reductions in per student educational appropriations, and nationally, appropriations fell 5.5 percent. It took five years for funding per student to return to pre-recession levels, hitting $8,726 in 1998. The recession of the early 2000s was more pronounced with 35, then 43, then 45, then 30 states experiencing year-over-year reductions in funding in 2002, 2003, 2004, and 2005, respectively. Over this time frame, educational appropriations per student fell 17.4 percent in total. The recovery from this recession lasted just three years, and appropriations had not returned to their previous levels when the Great Recession took effect in 2009, reducing appropriations even further.

In 2008, when the Great Recession began, educational appropriations per student were $8,221 and 9.9 percent below the 2001 levels. With respect to higher education funding, the last two recessions, therefore, compounded upon one another. Even with

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

COUNT OF STATES INCREASING OR DECREASING APPROPRIATIONS (SHEF CONSTANT DOLLARS), FY 1990-2015 CASE STUDY FIGURE 1

31

32

39

34

17

12

14

15

19

19

20

28

35

43

45

30

15

15

16

40

44

41

46

23

13

10

19

18

11

16

33

38

36

35

31

31

30

22

15

7

5

20

35

35

34

10

6

9

4

27

37

40

NOTES: 1) Educational appropriations are a measure of state and local support available for public higher education operating expenses including ARRA funds, and exclude appropriations for independent institutions, financial aid for students attending independent institutions, research, hospitals, and medical education.

2) Data is adjusted for Inflation using the Higher Education Cost Adjustment (HECA)


DECREASING INCREASING

NOTE: Educational appropriations are a measure of state and local support available for public higher education operating expenses including ARRA funds, and exclude appropriations for independent institutions, financial aid for students attending independent institutions, research, hospitals, and medical education.

Data is adjusted for Inflation using the Higher Education Cost Adjustment (HECA)



the ARRA stimulus funds, 2009 through 2012 saw at least 40 states experience reductions in educational appropriations per student each year. Funding fell 6.5 percent, 7.2 percent, and 4.7 percent in 2009, 2010, and 2011, respectively. In 2012, after the ARRA funds had largely been encumbered, educational appropriations fell 9.1 percent—the largest year-over-year decline since 1990—to $6,177. That year saw 46 states reduce appropriations for public higher education. As shown earlier in this report, educational appropriations per FTE have recovered to $6,966 in 2015, but this is 15.6 percent below the 2008 level and 23.9 percent below the first of these two compounding, back-to-back recessions in 2001 and 2009. However, the 40 states that increased funding were the most that did so in any year of our data series.

CERTIFICATE AND DEGREE COMPLETION

Many states have adopted completion and attainment goals that are often tied to statewide strategic plans. These goals build upon the efforts of foundations, such as Lumina Foundation, and President Obama’s call to improve educational attainment.7 Using data from the Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS) for 2004-2014 (the most recent years available) for certificate and degree completion8 at public institutions and SHEF FTE enrollment data, it is possible to compare and track progress toward these attainment goals. Figure 4 shows the 10-year trend in certificate and degree completion (stacked bars) and SHEF FTE enrollment (trend line) from 2004-2014. Figure 5 provides certificate and degrees per 100 SHEF FTE over the same time period, a standard way to normalize the data.

• Over 10 years, from 2004-2014, SHEF FTE enrollment grew 15.9 percent to 11,258,230, and certificate and degree production grew 36.3 percent to 2,866,375.

• SHEF FTE peaked in 2011 and had fallen 3.7 percent by 2014. From 2011 to 2014, certificate and degree completions grew 6.3 percent, indicating a correlation between enrollment growth and greater degree production in following years.

• Certificate, associate, and doctoral completions saw the largest increases from 2004 to 2014 (50.2, 46.4, and 41.3 percent, respectively). Bachelor’s and master’s degrees saw lesser increases; 29.5 and 21.9 percent, in this same time frame. However, bachelor’s degrees remain the most common degree, accounting for a 10-year average of 38.9 percent of all completions and reaching a high of 1,167,493 in 2014.

• Completions per FTE grew 17.6 percent from 2004 to 2014. The greatest growth (10.3 percent) occurred from 2011 to 2014, the same years during which SHEF FTE fell 3.7 percent and all certificates and completions grew only 6.3 percent.

• Greater focus on student success at the state and institution levels may be correlated with the increased rate of completions per FTE. However, because reductions in FTE include all students, these reductions may not be represented in completion rates for several years.

7 www.whitehouse.gov/issues/education/higher-education

8 SHEEO’s calculations come from the Completions Survey of the Integrated Postsecondary Data Systems (IPEDS). Includes certificates greater than 1 year and less than 4 years, and all degrees awarded at public institutions.

https://www.whitehouse.gov/issues/education/higher-education


FIGURE 4TOTAL DEGREE AND CERTIFICATE COMPLETIONS BY LEVEL AND SHEF FTE, CY 2004-2014

FIGURE 5DEGREE AND CERTIFICATE COMPLETIONS PER 100 SHEF FTE, CY 2004-2014

FIGURE 3

NOTE: Certificates includes certificates of greater than one and less than four years

SOURCE: Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS) and State Higher Education Executive O�cers

TOTAL DEGREE AND CERTIFICATE COMPLETIONS BY LEVEL, AND SHEF FTE ENROLLMENT, CY 2004-2014

2

0

4

6

8

10

12

14

500

0

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

3,000

3,500

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

DE

GR

EE

S A

ND

CE

RT

IFIC

AT

ES

(T

HO

US

AN

DS

)

FT

E E

NR

OL

LM

EN

T (

MIL

LIO

NS

)

DOCTORSMASTERSBACHELORSASSOCIATESCERTIFICATES SHEF FTE

'

FIGURE 5

DEGREE AND CERTIFICATE COMPLETIONS PER 100 SHEF FTE, CY 2004-2014

NOTE: Certificates includes certificates of greater than one and less than four years..

SOURCE: Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS) and State Higher Education Executive O�cers

15

20

25

30

20

04

20

05

20

06

20

07

20

08

20

09

20

10

20

11

20

12

20

13

20

14

21.621.9

22.5 22.7 22.622.4

22.3

23.1

23.5

24.725.5

NOTE: Certificates includes certificates of greater than one and less than four years.

SOURCE: Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS) and State Higher Education Executive Officers

NOTE: Certificates includes certificates of greater than one and less than four years.

SOURCE: Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS) and State Higher Education Executive Officers


INTERSTATE COMPARISONS—MAKING SENSE OF MANY VARIABLES

National averages and trends often mask substantial variations and important differences across the 50 states. This section examines these interstate differences more closely. First, it explains in greater detail the adjustments SHEF makes to state-level data. Next, it illustrates differences and trends across each of the SHEF metrics of higher education financing, for example, rates of enrollment growth or the varying proportions of public versus tuition financing.

SHEF ADJUSTMENTS TO FACILITATE INTERSTATE COMPARISONS

Many factors affect the decisions and relative positions of states in their funding of higher education. Although no comparative analysis can take all of these into account, SHEF makes two adjustments to reflect the most basic differences—differences in the cost of living across states and in the public postsecondary enrollment mix among different types of institutions.

Technical Paper Table 1 (in Technical Paper B on the SHEF webpage www.sheeo.org/shef-techpapers-dataproviders) shows the impact of SHEF cost of living and enrollment mix adjustments on total educational revenue per FTE. These adjustments tend to draw states toward the national average; for example, states with a high cost of living also often tend to support higher education at above average levels, in which cases, the SHEF adjustment for living costs reduces the extent of their above average higher education revenues per student. The size and direction of these adjustments vary across states.

In brief:

• In states where the cost of living exceeds the national average, dollars per FTE are adjusted downward (e.g., Massachusetts). In states where the cost of living is below the national average, dollars per FTE are adjusted upward (e.g., Arkansas).

• If the proportion of enrollment in higher-cost institutions (e.g., research institutions) exceeds the national average, the dollars per FTE are adjusted downward. In states with a relatively inexpensive enrollment mix (e.g., more enrollment in community colleges), the dollars per FTE are adjusted upward.9

• Dollars per FTE are adjusted upward most significantly in states with an inexpensive enrollment mix and low cost of living (e.g., Wyoming). The reverse is true for states that possess both a more expensive enrollment mix and a higher cost of living (e.g., Colorado). In some states, the two factors cancel out each other (e.g., Washington).

9 SHEEO’s Enrollment Mix Index adjusts state metrics based on the distribution of enrollment across institution type in a state. The adjustment does not account for distribution of students across educational level or the discipline mix offered across a state’s institutions.

http://www.sheeo.org/shef-TechPapers-DataProviders

http://www.sheeo.org/shef-TechPapers-DataProviders


COMPARING STATES ACROSS SINGLE DIMENSIONS OR VARIABLES

This section illustrates the variability across states and over time with respect to higher education enrollment growth, total state and local appropriations, the proportion of tuition-derived revenue, total revenue available for public educational programs, and current funding in the context of each state’s average national position over the last five years and since the pre-recession high funding level of 2008.

Figure 6 (and the accompanying data in Table 4) shows changes in full-time equivalent enrollment (FTE) in public higher education by state for the five years between 2010 and 2015, and also since the Great Recession (2008).

• Enrollment continues to decline and, nationally, enrollment is down 1.0 percent since 2014 and 2 percent since 2010.

• Thirty-eight states have seen enrollment declines since 2010, ranging from 0.2 percent in Kansas to 15.3 percent in Ohio. Twenty-five of those states saw enrollment declines greater than the U.S. average of 2 percent.

• Twelve states show enrollment increases since 2010. These increases range from 0.2 percent in Maryland to 15.2 percent in Idaho.

• Since the Great Recession, enrollment growth is up 8.6 percent nationally, with 47 states higher than they were in 2008 and three states (Louisiana, Michigan, and West Virginia) slightly down from 2008. The fact that most states are down from 2010, but remain higher than pre-recession enrollment levels, shows how much an impact the Great Recession may have had on college participation.

FIGURE 6PUBLIC HIGHER EDUCATION FULL-TIME EQUIVALENT (FTE) ENROLLMENT: PERCENT CHANGE, FY 2010-2015

FIGURE 6

-20%

-15%

-10%

-5%

0%

5%

10%

15%

OH

IO

MIC

HIG

AN

MIN

NE

SOT

A

WE

ST V

IRG

INIA

LOU

ISIA

NA

WIS

CO

NSI

N

GE

OR

GIA

ALA

BA

MA

NO

RT

H C

AR

OLI

NA

WY

OM

ING

VE

RM

ON

T

MA

INE

WA

SHIN

GT

ON

NE

BR

ASK

A

CA

LIFO

RN

IA

PE

NN

SYLV

AN

IA

OK

LAH

OM

A

CO

LOR

AD

O

OR

EG

ON

NE

VA

DA

NE

W M

EX

ICO

TE

NN

ESS

EE

MIS

SOU

RI

NO

RT

H D

AK

OT

A

NE

W H

AM

PSH

IRE

U.S

.

ALA

SKA

IOW

A

RH

OD

E IS

LAN

D

AR

KA

NSA

S

KE

NT

UC

KY

HA

WA

II

FLO

RID

A

NE

W Y

OR

K

IND

IAN

A

MO

NT

AN

A

ILLI

NO

IS

KA

NSA

S

MA

RY

LAN

D

VIR

GIN

IA

NE

W J

ER

SEY

UT

AH

MIS

SISS

IPP

I

SOU

TH

CA

RO

LIN

A

CO

NN

EC

TIC

UT

MA

SSA

CH

USE

TT

S

SOU

TH

DA

KO

TA

AR

IZO

NA

DE

LAW

AR

E

TE

XA

S

IDA

HO

-2.0%

-15.3%

15.2%

PUBLIC HIGHER EDUCATION FULL-TIME EQUIVALENT (FTE) ENROLLMENT: PERCENT CHANGE FY 2010-2015

NOTE: Dollars adjusted by 2015 HECA, Cost of Living Adjustment, and Enrollment Index.

SOURCE: State Higher Education Executive O�cersNOTE: Dollars adjusted by 2015 HECA, Cost of Living Adjustment, and Enrollment Index.



TABLE 4PUBLIC HIGHER EDUCATION FULL-TIME EQUIVALENT (FTE) ENROLLMENT

FY 2008

(PRE- RECESSION)

FY 2010 FY 2014 FY 2015 1 YEAR % CHANGE

5 YEAR % CHANGE

% CHANGE SINCE

RECESSION

ALABAMA 187,086 210,067 194,439 195,411 0.5% -7.0% 4.4%

ALASKA 18,703 20,271 20,464 19,904 -2.7% -1.8% 6.4%

ARIZONA 233,255 259,953 270,127 274,235 1.5% 5.5% 17.6%

ARKANSAS 107,428 118,884 119,608 116,948 -2.2% -1.6% 8.9%

CALIFORNIA 1,507,467 1,612,044 1,517,902 1,539,822 1.4% -4.5% 2.1%

COLORADO 164,638 187,231 184,836 181,867 -1.6% -2.9% 10.5%

CONNECTICUT 77,088 85,033 88,681 87,403 -1.4% 2.8% 13.4%

DELAWARE 31,619 33,570 35,657 36,742 3.0% 0 16.2%

FLORIDA 540,823 607,246 608,221 601,292 -1.1% -1.0% 11.2%

GEORGIA 310,759 370,732 347,733 344,325 -1.0% -7.1% 10.8%

HAWAII 35,469 39,857 40,417 39,432 -2.4% -1.1% 11.2%

IDAHO 43,968 49,251 56,177 56,726 1.0% 15.2% 29.0%

ILLINOIS 391,386 424,716 436,794 423,146 -3.1% -0.4% 8.1%

INDIANA 230,323 251,213 249,019 249,218 0.1% -0.8% 8.2%

IOWA 115,011 127,128 127,407 124,883 -2.0% -1.8% 8.6%

KANSAS 127,117 137,374 138,310 137,036 -0.9% -0.2% 7.8%

KENTUCKY 142,382 154,247 154,782 152,317 -1.6% -1.3% 7.0%

LOUISIANA 165,781 178,931 168,001 165,329 -1.6% -7.6% -0.3%

MAINE 35,533 37,517 36,577 35,608 -2.6% -5.1% 0.2%

MARYLAND 207,255 231,189 232,630 231,570 -0.5% 0.2% 11.7%

MASSACHUSETTS 148,288 165,244 172,574 170,703 -1.1% 3.3% 15.1%

MICHIGAN 395,019 434,490 400,859 392,275 -2.1% -9.7% -0.7%

MINNESOTA 196,014 215,009 203,754 197,724 -3.0% -8.0% 0.9%

MISSISSIPPI 118,871 127,025 130,436 129,481 -0.7% 1.9% 8.9%

MISSOURI 164,160 191,608 196,831 186,936 -5.0% -2.4% 13.9%

MONTANA 35,556 38,909 39,484 38,732 -1.9% -0.5% 8.9%

NEBRASKA 75,451 83,206 79,704 79,182 -0.7% -4.8% 4.9%

NEVADA 63,324 68,799 64,497 66,924 3.8% -2.7% 5.7%

NEW HAMPSHIRE 32,982 39,171 36,988 38,398 3.8% -2.0% 16.4%

NEW JERSEY 238,040 268,066 274,341 270,053 -1.6% 0.7% 13.4%

NEW MEXICO 85,203 98,709 98,630 96,110 -2.6% -2.6% 12.8%

NEW YORK 526,538 572,355 565,719 567,465 0.3% -0.9% 7.8%

NORTH CAROLINA 357,601 420,956 402,199 391,990 -2.5% -6.9% 9.6%

NORTH DAKOTA 34,955 37,716 36,927 36,801 -0.3% -2.4% 5.3%

OHIO 375,932 447,494 401,874 379,032 -5.7% -15.3% 0.8%

OKLAHOMA 131,191 142,024 145,401 136,311 -6.3% -4.0% 3.9%

OREGON 129,626 160,037 165,480 155,505 -6.0% -2.8% 20.0%

PENNSYLVANIA 343,043 371,286 358,820 355,062 -1.0% -4.4% 3.5%

RHODE ISLAND 30,120 32,071 31,506 31,547 0.1% -1.6% 4.7%

SOUTH CAROLINA 150,333 172,579 176,746 176,789 0.0% 2.4% 17.6%

SOUTH DAKOTA 29,595 32,324 33,659 33,938 0.8% 5.0% 14.7%

TENNESSEE 173,706 190,286 190,485 185,316 -2.7% -2.6% 6.7%

TEXAS 804,918 863,475 994,745 993,485 -0.1% 15.1% 23.4%

UTAH 103,320 118,446 119,692 120,352 0.6% 1.6% 16.5%

VERMONT 19,797 21,778 20,955 20,652 -1.4% -5.2% 4.3%

VIRGINIA 281,940 312,598 318,166 314,066 -1.3% 0.5% 11.4%

WASHINGTON 221,264 254,867 245,011 242,221 -1.1% -5.0% 9.5%

WEST VIRGINIA 73,525 78,798 76,202 72,765 -4.5% -7.7% -1.0%

WISCONSIN 219,006 237,403 223,777 219,490 -1.9% -7.5% 0.2%

WYOMING 23,054 25,587 24,986 24,041 -3.8% -6.0% 4.3%

U.S. 10,255,463 11,358,769 11,258,230 11,136,560 -1.1% -2.0% 8.6%

NOTE: Full-time equivalent enrollment equates student credit hours to full-time, academic year students, but excludes medical students.



Figure 7 (and the accompanying data in Table 5) shows the percent change by state in higher educational appropriations per public FTE student between 2008 and 2015. The national average per-FTE funding for 2015 increased 5.2 percent in constant dollars over 2014 to $6,966 (see Table 5). This is the third consecutive year of per student funding growth; however, educational appropriations per FTE remain 15.3 percent lower than they were in 2008 (the most recent high point for funding prior to the Great Recession), and 2.4 percent lower than in 2010.

• Thirteen states increased constant dollar per student support for public institutions during the five-year period from 2010 to 2015. These increases range from 1.1 percent in Rhode Island to 32.5 percent in Illinois, where the increases primarily cover historical underfunding of pension programs. Excluding Illinois, the largest increase was 21.8 percent in North Dakota.

• A large increase in funding for the Illinois State Universities Retirement System accounts for 21 percent of the 2014-2015 nationwide increase in educational appropriations per FTE. Without Illinois, educational appropriations per FTE would have increased 4.2 percent instead of 5.2 percent in the past year.

• Since the pre-recession high in 2008, educational appropriations per FTE have decreased 15.3 percent. Without Illinois in the data, that decrease from 2008-2015 is 17.4 percent.

• Due to the additional funding flowing to the Illinois pension system, nationwide increases in educational appropriations have been exaggerated, while decreases have been minimized. See the case study on Illinois below for more detail detail on the funding situation in Illinois.

• Thirty-seven states decreased constant dollar per student funding during this five-year period, five by more than 20 percent and twenty by more than 10 percent.

• Federal funds available through the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act were used to help fill shortfalls in state support for general operating expenses at public colleges and universities in 2009, 2010, and 2011, and are included in the state educational appropriations data. These funds were largely spent by 2012 and have not been used since that time.


FIGURE 7PUBLIC HIGHER EDUCATION EDUCATIONAL APPROPRIATIONS PER FTE: PERCENT CHANGE, FY 2010-2015

-30%

-25%

-20%

-15%

-10%

-5%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

LOU

ISIA

NA

AR

IZO

NA

DE

LAW

AR

E

PE

NN

SYLV

AN

IA

NE

VA

DA

TE

XA

S

NE

W H

AM

PSH

IRE

CO

LOR

AD

O

OK

LAH

OM

A

NE

W J

ER

SEY

MIS

SISS

IPP

I

TE

NN

ESS

EE

IDA

HO

CO

NN

EC

TIC

UT

KE

NT

UC

KY

SOU

TH

CA

RO

LIN

A

VIR

GIN

IA

WA

SHIN

GT

ON

ALA

BA

MA

MIN

NE

SOT

A

WIS

CO

NSI

N

MIS

SOU

RI

IOW

A

WE

ST V

IRG

INIA

HA

WA

II

SOU

TH

DA

KO

TA

KA

NSA

S

VE

RM

ON

T

MIC

HIG

AN

FLO

RID

A

AR

KA

NSA

S

GE

OR

GIA

IND

IAN

A

U.S

.

MA

INE

NO

RT

H C

AR

OLI

NA

OR

EG

ON

MA

RY

LAN

D

RH

OD

E IS

LAN

D

NE

W Y

OR

K

UT

AH

OH

IO

MO

NT

AN

A

ALA

SKA

MA

SSA

CH

USE

TT

S

NE

W M

EX

ICO

NE

BR

ASK

A

CA

LIFO

RN

IA

WY

OM

ING

NO

RT

H D

AK

OT

A

ILLI

NO

IS1

-2.4%

-28.5%

32.5%

PUBLIC HIGHER EDUCATION EDUCATIONAL APPROPRIATIONS PER FTE: PERCENT CHANGE FY 2010-2015FIGURE 7

NOTES: Dollars adjusted by 2015 HECA, Cost of Living Adjustment, and Enrollment Index. 1) For Illinois, a $1.08 billion back-payment in FY 2015 to their historically underfunded higher education pension program resulted in past legacy pension funds accounting for 37% of all educational appropriations.


NOTE: 1) For Illinois, a $1.08 billion back payment in FY 2015 to their historically underfunded higher education pension program resulted in past legacy pension funds accounting for 37% of all educational appropriations.

Dollars adjusted by 2015 HECA, Cost of Living Adjustment, and Enrollment Index.



TABLE 5EDUCATIONAL APPROPRIATIONS PER FTE (CONSTANT ADJUSTED 2015 DOLLARS)

FY 2008

(PRE- RECESSION)

FY 2010 FY 2014 FY 2015 INDEX TO U.S. AVERAGE

1 YEAR % CHANGE

5 YEAR % CHANGE

% CHANGE SINCE

RECESSION

ALABAMA $9,300 $6,450 $5,732 $5,774 0.83 0.7% -10.5% -37.9%

ALASKA $13,314 $13,238 $14,123 $14,112 2.03 -0.1% 6.6% 6.0%

ARIZONA $8,325 $7,023 $5,404 $5,350 0.77 -1.0% -23.8% -35.7%

ARKANSAS $8,150 $7,909 $7,571 $7,626 1.09 0.7% -3.6% -6.4%

CALIFORNIA $9,024 $7,303 $7,837 $8,522 1.22 8.7% 16.7% -5.6%

COLORADO $4,215 $4,304 $3,050 $3,529 0.51 15.7% -18.0% -16.3%

CONNECTICUT $9,945 $9,374 $7,319 $8,090 1.16 10.5% -13.7% -18.6%

DELAWARE $6,714 $6,145 $5,072 $4,804 0.69 -5.3% -21.8% -28.4%

FLORIDA $8,622 $6,552 $5,881 $6,271 0.90 6.6% -4.3% -27.3%

GEORGIA $9,428 $7,755 $7,239 $7,490 1.08 3.5% -3.4% -20.6%

HAWAII $10,320 $9,049 $7,755 $8,405 1.21 8.4% -7.1% -18.6%

IDAHO $10,647 $8,570 $7,083 $7,379 1.06 4.2% -13.9% -30.7%

ILLINOIS1 $8,332 $8,695 $9,339 $11,518 1.65 23.3% 32.5% 38.2%

INDIANA $5,592 $5,296 $5,319 $5,142 0.74 -3.3% -2.9% -8.0%

IOWA $6,692 $5,985 $5,294 $5,515 0.79 4.2% -7.9% -17.6%

KANSAS $7,025 $6,229 $5,725 $5,837 0.84 1.9% -6.3% -16.9%

KENTUCKY $9,076 $7,905 $6,848 $6,898 0.99 0.7% -12.7% -24.0%

LOUISIANA $9,470 $7,784 $5,521 $5,564 0.80 0.8% -28.5% -41.2%

MAINE $7,323 $6,661 $6,380 $6,546 0.94 2.6% -1.7% -10.6%

MARYLAND $8,721 $8,025 $7,666 $8,024 1.15 4.7% 0.0% -8.0%

MASSACHUSETTS $8,028 $6,268 $6,167 $6,728 0.97 9.1% 7.3% -16.2%

MICHIGAN $6,201 $5,339 $4,768 $5,097 0.73 6.9% -4.5% -17.8%

MINNESOTA $7,141 $6,345 $5,379 $5,695 0.82 5.9% -10.2% -20.3%

MISSISSIPPI $8,559 $8,059 $6,634 $6,896 0.99 3.9% -14.4% -19.4%

MISSOURI $7,484 $6,628 $5,399 $6,102 0.88 13.0% -7.9% -18.5%

MONTANA $5,169 $4,931 $4,901 $5,248 0.75 7.1% 6.4% 1.5%

NEBRASKA $8,323 $7,465 $7,855 $8,202 1.18 4.4% 9.9% -1.5%

NEVADA $10,194 $8,538 $7,023 $6,682 0.96 -4.9% -21.7% -34.5%

NEW HAMPSHIRE $3,581 $3,198 $2,387 $2,591 0.37 8.5% -19.0% -27.6%

NEW JERSEY $7,758 $6,757 $5,813 $5,766 0.83 -0.8% -14.7% -25.7%

NEW MEXICO $10,696 $8,036 $8,245 $8,799 1.26 6.7% 9.5% -17.7%

NEW YORK $9,065 $8,651 $8,577 $8,830 1.27 3.0% 2.1% -2.6%

NORTH CAROLINA $11,112 $9,049 $8,695 $8,894 1.28 2.3% -1.7% -20.0%

NORTH DAKOTA $5,748 $6,375 $7,861 $7,766 1.11 -1.2% 21.8% 35.1%

OHIO $5,627 $4,780 $4,302 $5,078 0.73 18.0% 6.2% -9.8%

OKLAHOMA $9,077 $8,874 $7,136 $7,521 1.08 5.4% -15.3% -17.1%

OREGON $5,991 $4,840 $4,241 $4,788 0.69 12.9% -1.1% -20.1%

PENNSYLVANIA $5,888 $4,806 $3,683 $3,758 0.54 2.0% -21.8% -36.2%

RHODE ISLAND $6,226 $4,735 $4,665 $4,785 0.69 2.6% 1.1% -23.2%

SOUTH CAROLINA $7,792 $5,807 $4,813 $5,077 0.73 5.5% -12.6% -34.8%

SOUTH DAKOTA $6,063 $5,403 $4,916 $5,062 0.73 3.0% -6.3% -16.5%

TENNESSEE $9,101 $8,212 $7,008 $7,051 1.01 0.6% -14.1% -22.5%

TEXAS $9,548 $9,643 $8,132 $7,748 1.11 -4.7% -19.6% -18.8%

UTAH $7,478 $5,780 $5,554 $6,062 0.87 9.2% 4.9% -18.9%

VERMONT $3,180 $2,968 $2,827 $2,818 0.40 -0.3% -5.0% -11.4%

VIRGINIA $6,547 $5,540 $4,832 $4,911 0.71 1.6% -11.3% -25.0%

WASHINGTON $7,757 $6,480 $5,801 $5,764 0.83 -0.6% -11.0% -25.7%

WEST VIRGINIA $7,490 $5,999 $5,489 $5,542 0.80 1.0% -7.6% -26.0%

WISCONSIN $7,162 $6,552 $5,888 $5,991 0.86 1.8% -8.6% -16.3%

WYOMING $16,716 $14,629 $15,820 $17,300 2.48 9.4% 18.3% 3.5%

U.S. $8,220 $7,135 $6,620 $6,966 1.00 5.2% -2.4% -15.3%

NOTES: 1) For Illinois, a $1.08 billion back payment in FY 2015 to their historically underfunded higher education pension program resulted in past legacy pension funds accounting for 37% of all educational appropriations.

Educational appropriations are a measure of state and local support available for public higher education operating expenses including ARRA funds, and exclude appropriations for independent institutions, financial aid for students attending independent institutions, research, hospitals, and medical education. Adjustment factors, to arrive at constant dollar figures, include Cost of Living Adjustment (COLA), Enrollment Mix Index (EMI),

and Higher Education Cost Adjustment (HECA).The Cost of Living Adjustment (COLA) is not a measure of inflation over time.SOURCE: State Higher Education Executive Officers


CASE STUDY — KENTUCKYHIGHER EDUCATION EXPENDITURES IN KENTUCKY

This report focuses on the revenue available to higher education institutions, tracking appropriations from state and local government, tuition revenue, and enrollment over time. On the revenue side, educational appropriations per student have fallen 15.3 percent nationally since 2008 to $6,966 in 2015. Over the same time period, the U.S. average net tuition revenue per student increased 31.8 percent to $6,006. The total educational revenue from these two funding sources is now up slightly from $12,734 in 2008 to $12,907 in 2015; therefore, from a national perspective, the revenue available for the general operations of public institutions is back to pre-recession levels with increased reliance on tuition revenue.

Of course, revenue is only one half of the broad financial picture for higher education. Just as SHEF tracks changes in revenue over time, it is important to consider changes in expenditures as well. For context, this case study shows how the obligations and expenditures have changed since the pre-recession high point of 2008 in one state, Kentucky. This is intended as an example and does not imply that other states have had the same changes in obligations and expenditures over the same period.

Between 2008 and 2015, Kentucky experienced:

• A 24 percent reduction in educational appropriations per student from $9,076 to $6,898, and

• A 27 percent increase in net tuition revenue per student from $5,293 to $6,722.

In total, the revenue per student from these two sources is 5.2 percent down from 2008, meaning Kentucky public institutions have 5.2 percent less revenue to spend per student than they did in 2008.

Figure 8, provided by the Kentucky Council on Postsecondary Education, summarizes the impact of budget cuts and mandatory obligations on Kentucky institutions between 2008 and 2015. These data are shown in millions and are not presented on a per student basis (as are most of the revenue data throughout the rest of the SHEF report).


HIGHER EDUCATION REVENUE SOURCES AND REDUCTIONS IN KENTUCKYIMPACT OF BUDGET CUTS, FY 2008-2015

(DOLLARS IN MILLIONS)

CASE STUDY FIGURE 2

NOTE: Some numbers are estimates, due to changes in data collection over the time period

SOURCE: Council on Postsecondary Education (CPE) Kentucky Postsecondary Education Data System (KPEDS)

0

4000

$899

$175

$620 $2,455

$1,066 SHORTFALL

$1,151

$181

$495

FIXED COSTS AND ENACTED BUDGET REDUCTIONS

GROSS TUITION AND FEE REVENUE

GENERAL FUND CUTS TO INSTITUTIONS (16%)

PENSION COST INCREASES

HEALTH INSURANCE INCREASES

OTHER FIXED COST INCREASES(UTILITIES, CONTRACTUAL OBLIGATIONS, ETC.)

COST SHIFT (M&O)

GROWTH IN INSTITUTIONALFINANCIAL AID

FIGURE 8CASE STUDY–KENTUCKY BUDGET CHALLENGES FOR POSTSECONDARY INSTITUTIONS CUMULATIVE IMPACT 2008-2015 (DOLLARS IN MILLIONS)

Kentucky institutions received a 16 percent reduction in General Fund support that totaled $899 million over the time frame. At the same time, pension obligations increased $175 million, health insurance expenses grew $620 million, and other fixed costs (unemployment insurance, workers compensation, utilities, computing contracts, etc.) grew $1.2 billion. These represent mandatory obligations and expenditures that are largely out of the control of institutional management. At the same time, Kentucky institutions took on $181 million in maintenance and operations that was formerly covered directly by the state, and increased institution-funded financial aid to students by almost $500 million. Increased tuition and fee revenue between 2008 and 2015 covered $2.5 billion, or 70 percent, of these obligations; however, an approximate $1 billion shortfall has been absorbed by higher education institutions.

NOTE: Some numbers are estimates, due to changes in data collection over the time period

SOURCE: Council on Postsecondary Education (CPE) Kentucky Postsecondary Education Data System (KPEDS)


CASE STUDY — ILLINOISHIGHER EDUCATION FUNDING IN ILLINOIS

Throughout the SHEF report, the State of Illinois stands out from the other 49 states. Since 2010, educational appropriations per student have grown 32.5 percent. The next largest increase (in North Dakota) was 21.8 percent, while, nationally, educational appropriations per student were down 2.4 percent. However, the total dollar funding provided for general operations at Illinois institutions declined 12.3 percent over the time frame (see Figure 9). The growth in educational appropriations per student is driven primarily by state action to address previous underfunding of state pension programs.

State pension and retirement systems require major expenditure outlays, especially as the states’ workforce ages and the baby boom generation retires in large numbers. These obligations must be covered by the general operating revenues available to public institutions of higher education in the states and should be considered an expenditure that is covered by the state, local, and tuition revenues described throughout the SHEF report.

According to data provided by the Illinois Board of Higher Education, Illinois historically underfunded its higher education pension system until 2008, when the legislature was required to make significant increases in its funding. Since 2007 (the year before Illinois began mandating increases), funding to the State Universities Retirement System (SURS) increased from $255.8 million to $1.55 billion in fiscal year 2015. Of the $1.55 billion paid in fiscal year 2015, $1.08 billion addressed the previous underfunding of the retirement system, while $462.3 million provided current year costs. Retirement appropriations in FY 2015 make up 44.3 percent of the total funding provided for higher education, while in 2007 they comprised just 10.3 percent (see Figure 10). The majority of this revenue is making up for previously underfunding these obligations.


ILLINOIS STATE FUNDING FOR HIGHER EDUCATION, FY 2007-2015CASE STUDY FIGURE 3

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

MIL

LIO

NS

RETIREMENT SYSTEM REST OF HIGHER EDUCATION

SOURCE: Records from the Illinois Board of Higher Education (IBHE) and the Illinois State Universities Retirement Systems (SURS)

$256

$1,549 $1,514

$1,407

$985

$780 $707

$454

$345

$2,216 $2,200 $2,209 $2,220 $2,124 $2,142

$1,980 $1,991 $1,948

PERCENT OF TOTAL HIGHER EDUCATION FUNDING ALLOCATED TO RETIREMENT SYSTEM, FY 2007-2015CASE STUDY FIGURE 4


0%

10%

44.3%

30%

40%

20%

50%

20

07

20

08

20

09

20

10

20

11

20

12

20

13

20

14

20

15

10.3%

13.6% 16.2%

24.1%

23.0%

31.5%

41.5%43.2%

FIGURE 9CASE STUDY–ILLINOIS STATE FUNDING FOR HIGHER EDUCATION, FY 2007-2015

FIGURE 10CASE STUDY–ILLINOIS PERCENT OF TOTAL HIGHER EDUCATION FUNDING ALLOCATED TO RETIREMENT SYSTEM, FY 2007-2015




While the pension shortfall in Illinois is extreme, the state has been taking actions to address it. However, to date, Illinois has yet to enact a state budget for fiscal year 2016 (July 1, 2015 to June 30, 2016) meaning higher education institutions have not received any state funding in the current year. Nor has the state funded its large need-based financial aid grant program, an obligation that institutions have self-funded and covered in lieu of assumed state support for these grants. Illinois will likely appear very different in next year’s SHEF report when the 2016 year is accounted for. However, more importantly, the lack of a state budget in Illinois and subsequent state funding for higher education is likely to impact enrollment, especially for low-income students, institutional solvency and viability, and will severely limit Illinois in its ability to increase educational attainment.

Figure 11 shows net tuition revenue as a percentage of total educational revenue for public higher education by state for 2014. The accompanying Table 6 shows the dollar values of net tuition per FTE by state.

• States vary widely in the percentage of educational revenue supported by net tuition, from a low of 14.9 percent in Wyoming to a high of 84.9 percent in Vermont. Over time, state positions in Figure 6 are relatively consistent. While most states have seen increases in the share of total revenue from tuition over time, they are not changing positions relative to one another.

• Reliance on net tuition revenue fell slightly in 2015 from 47.2 percent to 46.5 percent in 2015. This was the second consecutive year of a decline in this measure after reaching a high of 47.8 percent in 2013.

• Two states saw more than a 10 percent increase in net tuition revenue from 2014 to 2015; Arizona had a 12.2 percent increase and Connecticut had a 21.3 percent increase.

• Thirty-one states are above the national average of 46.5 percent in the proportion of educational revenue from tuition sources, while 15 states are above 60 percent.

• Since 2008, increased tuition revenue per FTE has entirely offset the reductions in educational appropriations per FTE in twenty-five states. This is not the case in twenty states, in which tuition has not yet increased enough to make up for reductions in educational appropriations. The final five states did not have a net reduction in educational appropriations per FTE from 2008-2015.


FIGURE 11NET TUITION AS A PERCENT OF TOTAL EDUCATIONAL REVENUE, FY 2015

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

WY

OM

ING

CA

LIFO

RN

IA

ALA

SKA

NE

W M

EX

ICO

ILLI

NO

IS

HA

WA

II

FLO

RID

A

NO

RT

H C

AR

OLI

NA

NE

W Y

OR

K

GE

OR

GIA

IDA

HO

NE

VA

DA

NE

BR

ASK

A

TE

XA

S

MA

SSA

CH

USE

TT

S

OK

LAH

OM

A

AR

KA

NSA

S

UT

AH

NO

RT

H D

AK

OT

A

U.S

.

LOU

ISIA

NA

WIS

CO

NSI

N

TE

NN

ESS

EE

MIS

SISS

IPP

I

WA

SHIN

GT

ON

MIS

SOU

RI

KE

NT

UC

KY

MA

RY

LAN

D

CO

NN

EC

TIC

UT

MO

NT

AN

A

KA

NSA

S

IND

IAN

A

MA

INE

MIN

NE

SOT

A

AR

IZO

NA

IOW

A

NE

W J

ER

SEY

OH

IO

WE

ST V

IRG

INIA

OR

EG

ON

RH

OD

E IS

LAN

D

VIR

GIN

IA

SOU

TH

CA

RO

LIN

A

SOU

TH

DA

KO

TA

ALA

BA

MA

MIC

HIG

AN

CO

LOR

AD

O

PE

NN

SYLV

AN

IA

DE

LAW

AR

E

NE

W H

AM

PSH

IRE

VE

RM

ON

T

46.5%

14.9%

84.9%

NET TUITION AS A PERCENTAGE OF TOTAL EDUCATIONAL REVENUE, FY 2015FIGURE 7

NOTE: Dollars adjusted by 2015 HECA, Cost of Living Adjustment, and Enrollment Index.


NOTE: Net tuition revenue is calculated by taking the gross amount of tuition and fees, less state and institutional financial aid, tuition waivers or discounts, and medical student tuition and fees. Net tuition revenue used for capital debt service is included in the net tuition revenue figures above.




TABLE 6PUBLIC HIGHER EDUCATION NET TUITION REVENUE PER FTE (CONSTANT ADJUSTED 2015 DOLLARS)

FY 2008

(PRE- RECESSION)

FY 2010 FY 2014 FY 2015 INDEX TO

U.S. AVERAGE1 YEAR % CHANGE

5 YEAR % CHANGE

% CHANGE SINCE

RECESSION

ALABAMA $6,327 $7,834 $10,444 $10,098 1.68 -3.3% 28.9% 59.6%

ALASKA $4,496 $4,649 $5,016 $5,181 0.86 3.3% 11.4% 15.2%

ARIZONA $4,563 $5,116 $6,533 $7,331 1.22 12.2% 43.3% 60.6%

ARKANSAS $4,171 $4,418 $5,072 $5,349 0.89 5.5% 21.1% 28.2%

CALIFORNIA $1,452 $1,882 $2,422 $2,349 0.39 -3.0% 24.8% 61.7%

COLORADO $5,585 $6,316 $8,190 $8,083 1.35 -1.3% 28.0% 44.7%

CONNECTICUT $6,463 $6,525 $6,660 $8,077 1.34 21.3% 23.8% 25.0%

DELAWARE $10,281 $11,452 $13,889 $13,763 2.29 -0.9% 20.2% 33.9%

FLORIDA $2,480 $2,625 $3,245 $3,188 0.53 -1.7% 21.5% 28.6%

GEORGIA $2,342 $2,662 $4,178 $4,365 0.73 4.5% 64.0% 86.3%

HAWAII $2,867 $3,513 $4,003 $4,175 0.70 4.3% 18.8% 45.6%

IDAHO $2,562 $3,064 $4,266 $4,472 0.74 4.8% 46.0% 74.6%

ILLINOIS $3,582 $4,251 $5,061 $5,237 0.87 3.5% 23.2% 46.2%

INDIANA $6,001 $6,673 $6,864 $6,696 1.11 -2.4% 0.3% 11.6%

IOWA $6,240 $6,755 $7,904 $8,267 1.38 4.6% 22.4% 32.5%

KANSAS $4,964 $5,089 $5,966 $6,174 1.03 3.5% 21.3% 24.4%

KENTUCKY $5,293 $5,598 $6,352 $6,722 1.12 5.8% 20.1% 27.0%

LOUISIANA $3,029 $2,948 $4,585 $4,881 0.81 6.5% 65.6% 61.2%

MAINE $7,295 $8,300 $8,572 $8,728 1.45 1.8% 5.2% 19.7%

MARYLAND $7,113 $7,418 $7,753 $7,819 1.30 0.8% 5.4% 9.9%

MASSACHUSETTS $5,421 $5,465 $5,006 $5,028 0.84 0.5% -8.0% -7.2%

MICHIGAN $8,248 $8,934 $10,968 $11,413 1.90 4.1% 27.8% 38.4%

MINNESOTA $5,569 $7,067 $7,790 $7,740 1.29 -0.6% 9.5% 39.0%

MISSISSIPPI $4,990 $5,329 $6,241 $6,391 1.06 2.4% 19.9% 28.1%

MISSOURI $5,150 $4,451 $5,667 $5,896 0.98 4.0% 32.4% 14.5%

MONTANA $5,082 $5,118 $5,463 $5,535 0.92 1.3% 8.1% 8.9%

NEBRASKA $4,093 $3,665 $5,411 $5,372 0.89 -0.7% 46.6% 31.2%

NEVADA $2,968 $3,193 $4,013 $4,150 0.69 3.4% 29.9% 39.8%

NEW HAMPSHIRE $8,577 $8,221 $9,972 $9,843 1.64 -1.3% 19.7% 14.8%

NEW JERSEY $6,556 $6,910 $8,104 $8,680 1.45 7.1% 25.6% 32.4%

NEW MEXICO $1,201 $1,988 $3,719 $3,725 0.62 0.2% 87.4% 210.2%

NEW YORK $3,890 $4,173 $4,864 $5,073 0.84 4.3% 21.6% 30.4%

NORTH CAROLINA $3,331 $3,015 $4,383 $4,583 0.76 4.5% 52.0% 37.6%

NORTH DAKOTA $6,126 $6,083 $6,655 $6,688 1.11 0.5% 10.0% 9.2%

OHIO $6,523 $6,103 $7,323 $7,779 1.30 6.2% 27.5% 19.3%

OKLAHOMA $4,180 $4,254 $5,394 $5,904 0.98 9.5% 38.8% 41.2%

OREGON $5,301 $4,854 $7,444 $7,693 1.28 3.3% 58.5% 45.1%

PENNSYLVANIA $7,829 $8,693 $9,311 $9,637 1.60 3.5% 10.9% 23.1%

RHODE ISLAND $6,583 $7,361 $7,667 $7,812 1.30 1.9% 6.1% 18.7%

SOUTH CAROLINA $6,703 $6,867 $8,294 $7,812 1.30 -5.8% 13.8% 16.5%

SOUTH DAKOTA $5,767 $6,795 $8,209 $8,290 1.38 1.0% 22.0% 43.7%

TENNESSEE $4,410 $4,522 $6,083 $6,352 1.06 4.4% 40.5% 44.0%

TEXAS $4,957 $4,920 $5,177 $5,340 0.89 3.2% 8.5% 7.7%

UTAH $3,763 $3,992 $4,912 $5,021 0.84 2.2% 25.8% 33.4%

VERMONT $12,279 $12,172 $12,999 $13,496 2.25 3.8% 10.9% 9.9%

VIRGINIA $5,947 $6,398 $7,794 $8,007 1.33 2.7% 25.2% 34.6%

WASHINGTON $3,306 $3,388 $5,349 $5,503 0.92 2.9% 62.4% 66.5%

WEST VIRGINIA $5,589 $5,959 $7,236 $7,455 1.24 3.0% 25.1% 33.4%

WISCONSIN $4,232 $4,460 $5,485 $5,498 0.92 0.2% 23.3% 29.9%

WYOMING $2,933 $2,140 $2,807 $3,033 0.50 8.1% 41.7% 3.4%

U.S. $4,556 $4,879 $5,860 $6,006 1.00 2.5% 23.1% 31.8%

NOTES: Net tuition revenue is calculated by taking the gross amount of tuition and fees, less state and institutional financial aid, tuition waivers or discounts, and medical student tuition and fees. Net tuition revenue used for capital debt service is included in the net tuition revenue figures above.

Adjustment factors, to arrive at constant dollar figures, include Cost of Living Adjustment (COLA), Enrollment Mix Index (EMI), and Higher Education Cost Adjustment (HECA). The Cost of Living Adjustment (COLA) is not a measure of inflation over time.



Figure 12 (and the accompanying data in Table 7) shows the percentage change by state in total educational revenue per FTE in public higher education from 2008 to 2015. Total revenue per FTE in 2015 is 3.9 percent higher than in 2014 and 7.9 percent higher than 2010 (see Table 7).

• Forty-five states increased total educational revenue per student between 2010 and 2015, ranging from 0.1 percent in Hawaii to 28.8 percent in Oregon.

• Six states are below 2010 total education revenue per student levels, led by Texas with 10.1 percent lower educational revenue than in 2010.

• Nationally, total educational revenue per FTE (inclusive of the Illinois pension payment) is up slightly by 1.4 percent since 2008 (the start of the Great Recession), meaning that, nationwide, tuition revenue growth has offset state funding reductions made during the Great Recession; however, 19 states are still below their pre-recession levels despite increases in tuition.

FIGURE 12TOTAL EDUCATIONAL REVENUE PER FTE: PERCENT CHANGE, FY 2010-2015TOTAL EDUCATIONAL REVENUE PER FTE: PERCENT CHANGE FY 2010-2015

FIGURE 12

-15%

-10%

-5%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

TE

XA

S

NE

VA

DA

LOU

ISIA

NA

IND

IAN

A

PE

NN

SYLV

AN

IA

MIS

SISS

IPP

I

HA

WA

II

MIN

NE

SOT

A

MA

SSA

CH

USE

TT

S

KE

NT

UC

KY

CO

NN

EC

TIC

UT

SOU

TH

CA

RO

LIN

A

IDA

HO

MA

INE

OK

LAH

OM

A

MA

RY

LAN

D

AR

KA

NSA

S

FLO

RID

A

RH

OD

E IS

LAN

D

WIS

CO

NSI

N

AR

IZO

NA

TE

NN

ESS

EE

NE

W J

ER

SEY

DE

LAW

AR

E

KA

NSA

S

MO

NT

AN

A

ALA

SKA

U.S

.

SOU

TH

DA

KO

TA

VIR

GIN

IA

VE

RM

ON

T

IOW

A

MIS

SOU

RI

NE

W Y

OR

K

WE

ST V

IRG

INIA

NE

W H

AM

PSH

IRE

CO

LOR

AD

O

ALA

BA

MA

NO

RT

H C

AR

OLI

NA

UT

AH

GE

OR

GIA

WA

SHIN

GT

ON

MIC

HIG

AN

NO

RT

H D

AK

OT

A

OH

IO

CA

LIFO

RN

IA

WY

OM

ING

NE

BR

ASK

A

NE

W M

EX

ICO

ILLI

NO

IS1

OR

EG

ON

7.9%

10.1%

28.8%

NOTES: Dollars adjusted by 2015 HECA, Cost of Living Adjustment, and Enrollment Index.

Total educational revenue excludes net tuition revenue used for capital debt service.

1) For Illinois, a $1.08 billion back-payment in FY 2015 to their historically underfunded higher education pension program resulted in past legacy pension funds accounting for 37% of all educational appropriations.


NOTES: 1) For Illinois, a $1.08 billion back payment in FY 2015 to their historically underfunded higher education pension program resulted in past legacy pension funds accounting for 37% of all educational appropriations.


Total educational revenue excludes net tuition revenue used for capital debt service.



TABLE 7TOTAL EDUCATIONAL REVENUE PER FTE (CONSTANT ADJUSTED 2015 DOLLARS)

FY 2008

(PRE- RECESSION)

FY 2010 FY 2014 FY 2015 INDEX TO U.S. AVERAGE

1 YEAR % CHANGE

5 YEAR % CHANGE

% CHANGE SINCE

RECESSION

ALABAMA $15,115 $13,751 $15,513 $15,208 1.18 -2.0% 10.6% 0.6%

ALASKA $17,811 $17,887 $19,139 $19,293 1.49 0.8% 7.9% 8.3%

ARIZONA $12,535 $11,822 $11,575 $12,341 0.96 6.6% 4.4% -1.5%

ARKANSAS $11,671 $11,635 $11,766 $11,955 0.93 1.6% 2.8% 2.4%

CALIFORNIA $10,476 $9,185 $10,259 $10,870 0.84 6.0% 18.4% 3.8%

COLORADO $9,801 $10,620 $11,241 $11,611 0.90 3.3% 9.3% 18.5%

CONNECTICUT $16,408 $15,899 $13,980 $16,167 1.25 15.6% 1.7% -1.5%

DELAWARE $16,947 $17,507 $18,925 $18,533 1.44 -2.1% 5.9% 9.4%

FLORIDA $11,102 $9,177 $9,125 $9,460 0.73 3.7% 3.1% -14.8%

GEORGIA $11,750 $10,400 $11,410 $11,846 0.92 3.8% 13.9% 0.8%

HAWAII $13,187 $12,562 $11,758 $12,580 0.97 7.0% 0.1% -4.6%

IDAHO $13,209 $11,634 $11,349 $11,852 0.92 4.4% 1.9% -10.3%

ILLINOIS1 $11,914 $12,756 $14,080 $16,415 1.27 16.6% 28.7% 37.8%

INDIANA $11,564 $11,970 $12,183 $11,838 0.92 -2.8% -1.1% 2.4%

IOWA $12,932 $12,740 $13,198 $13,782 1.07 4.4% 8.2% 6.6%

KANSAS $11,989 $11,318 $11,691 $12,011 0.93 2.7% 6.1% 0.2%

KENTUCKY $14,369 $13,502 $13,200 $13,620 1.06 3.2% 0.9% -5.2%

LOUISIANA $12,499 $10,732 $10,106 $10,445 0.81 3.4% -2.7% -16.4%

MAINE $14,617 $14,960 $14,952 $15,275 1.18 2.2% 2.1% 4.5%

MARYLAND $15,834 $15,443 $15,419 $15,843 1.23 2.7% 2.6% 0.1%

MASSACHUSETTS $13,449 $11,733 $11,173 $11,756 0.91 5.2% 0.2% -12.6%

MICHIGAN $14,449 $14,273 $15,736 $16,511 1.28 4.9% 15.7% 14.3%

MINNESOTA $12,710 $13,412 $13,169 $13,435 1.04 2.0% 0.2% 5.7%

MISSISSIPPI $13,550 $13,387 $12,875 $13,287 1.03 3.2% -0.8% -1.9%

MISSOURI $12,634 $11,079 $11,066 $11,998 0.93 8.4% 8.3% -5.0%

MONTANA $10,251 $10,049 $10,363 $10,783 0.84 4.1% 7.3% 5.2%

NEBRASKA $12,416 $11,130 $13,266 $13,574 1.05 2.3% 22.0% 9.3%

NEVADA $13,163 $11,731 $11,036 $10,831 0.84 -1.9% -7.7% -17.7%

NEW HAMPSHIRE $12,157 $11,419 $12,360 $12,434 0.96 0.6% 8.9% 2.3%

NEW JERSEY $14,314 $13,668 $13,917 $14,447 1.12 3.8% 5.7% 0.9%

NEW MEXICO $11,897 $10,024 $11,964 $12,525 0.97 4.7% 24.9% 5.3%

NEW YORK $12,955 $12,823 $13,440 $13,903 1.08 3.4% 8.4% 7.3%

NORTH CAROLINA $14,443 $12,063 $13,078 $13,477 1.04 3.1% 11.7% -6.7%

NORTH DAKOTA $11,874 $12,458 $14,516 $14,454 1.12 -0.4% 16.0% 21.7%

OHIO $12,151 $10,883 $11,626 $12,857 1.00 10.6% 18.1% 5.8%

OKLAHOMA $13,257 $13,129 $12,530 $13,425 1.04 7.1% 2.3% 1.3%

OREGON $11,293 $9,694 $11,686 $12,481 0.97 6.8% 28.8% 10.5%

PENNSYLVANIA $13,717 $13,498 $12,994 $13,394 1.04 3.1% -0.8% -2.3%

RHODE ISLAND $12,809 $12,096 $12,332 $12,596 0.98 2.1% 4.1% -1.7%

SOUTH CAROLINA $13,929 $12,038 $12,432 $12,256 0.95 -1.4% 1.8% -12.0%

SOUTH DAKOTA $11,282 $11,575 $12,321 $12,501 0.97 1.5% 8.0% 10.8%

TENNESSEE $13,357 $12,581 $12,939 $13,219 1.02 2.2% 5.1% -1.0%

TEXAS $14,501 $14,562 $13,308 $13,089 1.01 -1.7% -10.1% -9.7%

UTAH $11,241 $9,772 $10,465 $11,083 0.86 5.9% 13.4% -1.4%

VERMONT $15,148 $14,696 $15,376 $15,893 1.23 3.4% 8.1% 4.9%

VIRGINIA $12,478 $11,888 $12,547 $12,839 0.99 2.3% 8.0% 2.9%

WASHINGTON $11,063 $9,868 $11,150 $11,267 0.87 1.1% 14.2% 1.8%

WEST VIRGINIA $12,292 $11,188 $11,906 $12,160 0.94 2.1% 8.7% -1.1%

WISCONSIN $11,394 $11,012 $11,373 $11,489 0.89 1.0% 4.3% 0.8%

WYOMING $19,649 $16,769 $18,589 $20,294 1.57 9.2% 21.0% 3.3%

U.S. $12,734 $11,963 $12,417 $12,907 1.00 3.9% 7.9% 1.4%

NOTES: 1) For Illinois, a $1.08 billion back-payment in FY 2015 to their historically underfunded higher education pension program resulted in past legacy pension funds accounting for 37% of all educational appropriations.

Total educational revenue is the sum of educational appropriations and net tuition excluding net tuition revenue used for capital debt service.

Adjustment factors, to arrive at constant dollar figures, include Cost of Living Adjustment (COLA), Enrollment Mix Index (EMI), and Higher Education Cost Adjustment (HECA). The Cost of Living Adjustment (COLA) is not a measure of inflation over time.



Figures 13 and 14 compare states to the national average on 2015 educational appropriations per FTE and total educational revenue per FTE, respectively. In 16 states, educational appropriations per FTE are within $1,000 of the U.S. average and a majority of states are within $2,000. In total educational revenue per FTE, 26 states are within $1,000 of the U.S. average, and 38 are within $2,000. Comparing states across both charts, traditionally high-tuition states like New Hampshire and Vermont are well below the national average for educational appropriations (Figure 13) but are just below and far above average, respectively, on total revenue (Figure 4).

FIGURE 13EDUCATIONAL APPROPRIATIONS PER FTE (ADJUSTED) – DIFFERENCE FROM U.S. AVERAGE, FY 2015

NOTE: Dollars adjusted by Cost of Living Adjustment and Enrollment Index


EDUCATIONAL APPROPRIATIONS PER FTE (ADJUSTED) - DIFFERENCE FROM U.S. AVERAGE, FY 2015

-6000 -4000 -2000 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000

10,334

7,147

4,552

1,929

1,865

1,833

1,556

1,439

1,236

1,125

1,058

801

783

660

555

524

414

85

0

-67

-70

-238

-284

-419

-694

-864

-903

-974

-1,129

-1,192

-1,199

-1,202

-1,271

-1,402

-1,424

-1,451

-1,616

-1,718

-1,824

-1,868

-1,888

-1,889

-1,903

-2,054

-2,162

-2,178

-2,181

-3,208

-3,437

-4,148

-4,375

WYOMING

ALASKA

ILLINOIS 1

NORTH CAROLINA

NEW YORK

NEW MEXICO

CALIFORNIA

HAWAII

NEBRASKA

CONNECTICUT

MARYLAND

NORTH DAKOTA

TEXAS

ARKANSAS

OKLAHOMA

GEORGIA

IDAHO

TENNESSEE

U.S.

KENTUCKY

MISSISSIPPI

MASSACHUSETTS

NEVADA

MAINE

FLORIDA

MISSOURI

UTAH

WISCONSIN

KANSAS

ALABAMA

NEW JERSEY

WASHINGTON

MINNESOTA

LOUISIANA

WEST VIRGINIA

IOWA

ARIZONA

MONTANA

INDIANA

MICHIGAN

OHIO

SOUTH CAROLINA

SOUTH DAKOTA

VIRGINIA

DELAWARE

OREGON

RHODE ISLAND

PENNSYLVANIA

COLORADO

VERMONT

NEW HAMPSHIRE

FIGURE 14

NOTE: 1) For Illinois, a $1.08 billion back payment in FY 2015 to their historically underfunded higher education pension program resulted in past legacy pension funds accounting for 37% of all educational appropriations

Dollars adjusted by Cost of Living Adjustment and Enrollment Index

Educational appropriations are a measure of state and local support available for public higher education operating expenses including ARRA funds, and exclude appropriations for independent institutions, financial aid for students attending independent institutions, research, hospitals, and medical education.



FIGURE 14TOTAL EDUCATIONAL REVENUE PER FTE (ADJUSTED) – DIFFERENCE FROM U.S. AVERAGE, FY 2015

NOTE: Dollars adjusted by Cost of Living Adjustment and Enrollment Index


TOTAL EDUCATIONAL REVENUE PER FTE (ADJUSTED) - DIFFERENCE FROM U.S. AVERAGE, FY 2015

-4000 -3000 -2000 -1000 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000

WYOMING

ALASKA

DELAWARE

MICHIGAN

ILLINOIS 1

CONNECTICUT

VERMONT

MARYLAND

MAINE

ALABAMA

NORTH DAKOTA

NEW JERSEY

NEW YORK

IOWA

KENTUCKY

NEBRASKA

NORTH CAROLINA

MINNESOTA

OKLAHOMA

PENNSYLVANIA

MISSISSIPPI

TENNESSEE

TEXAS

U.S.

OHIO

VIRGINIA

RHODE ISLAND

HAWAII

NEW MEXICO

SOUTH DAKOTA

OREGON

NEW HAMPSHIRE

ARIZONA

SOUTH CAROLINA

WEST VIRGINIA

KANSAS

MISSOURI

ARKANSAS

IDAHO

GEORGIA

INDIANA

MASSACHUSETTS

COLORADO

WISCONSIN

WASHINGTON

UTAH

CALIFORNIA

NEVADA

MONTANA

LOUISIANA

FLORIDA

-50

-68

-311

-328

-383

-406

-426

-473

-566

-651

-747

-897

-909

-952

-1,055

-1,061

-1,069

-1,151

-1,296

-1,418

-1,640

-1,824

-2,037

-2,076

-2,124

-2,462

-3,447

7,387

6,386

5,626

3,604

3,508

3,260

2,986

2,936

2,368

2,301

1,547

1,540

996

875

713

667

570

528

518

487

379

312

182

0

FIGURE 13

NOTE: 1) For Illinois, a $1.08 billion back-payment in FY 2015 to their historically underfunded higher education pension program resulted in past legacy pension funds accounting for 37% of all educational appropriations.

Dollars adjusted by Cost of Living Adjustment and Enrollment Index

Total educational revenue is the sum of educational appropriations and net tuition excluding net tuition revenue used for capital debt service



CASE STUDY — WASHINGTON, D.C., AND PUERTO RICOHIGHER EDUCATION FUNDING IN WASHINGTON, D.C. AND PUERTO RICO

For the first time, the 2015 SHEF report includes higher education financial data for Washington, D.C. and Puerto Rico. These data are not included in the national totals and per student metrics presented throughout the report. Further, these data have not been adjusted for enrollment mix and cost of living differences.

• Washington, D.C. has one public postsecondary institution serving 3,723 FTE (Table 8). In addition, more than 5,000 D.C. residents (FTE) attend out-of-state institutions. Washington D.C. offers need-based financial aid to students attending institutions within the District. In addition, the federally-funded D.C. Tuition Assistance Grant provides public aid to residents attending public institutions outside of the District and private institutions inside of the District.10

• Table 8 also shows that D.C.’s educational appropriations per FTE and net tuition per FTE have been above the U.S. average since 2011 (the earliest data we have for D.C.). The 2015 index to U.S. average for educational appropriations per FTE is 1.65, and is 1.33 for tuition revenue per FTE.

• In Puerto Rico, 2015 educational appropriations per FTE are also well above the U.S. average with an index of 2.2, but tuition revenue per FTE has the lowest index to the U.S. average of any state or territory at 0.15. Educational appropriations per FTE may be so high because 9.6 percent of the general budget of the government of Puerto Rico is statutorily assigned to the University of Puerto Rico (UPR).11 UPR is the only public university in Puerto Rico, educating 55,005 FTE in 2015 (Table 8).

In future years, we aim to include additional historical data for Washington, D.C. and Puerto Rico and integrate them into the full report.

10 osse.dc.gov/dctag

11 www.bgfpr.com/documents/CommonwealthReport-October302014.pdf

http://osse.dc.gov/dctag

http://www.bgfpr.com/documents/CommonwealthReport-October302014.pdf


TABLE 8CASE STUDY–WASHINGTON, D.C. AND PUERTO RICO COMPONENTS OF EDUCATION REVENUE, FY 2011-2015

2011 2012 2013 2014 20152015

INDEX TO U.S. AVERAGE

1-YEAR % CHANGE

4-YEAR % CHANGE

PUBLIC HIGHER EDUCATION FULL-TIME EQUIVALENT (FTE) ENROLLMENT 1

PUERTO RICO 52,295 52,936 53,082 53,305 55,005 - 3% 5%

WASHINGTON, D.C. 3,659 4,034 3,945 3,895 3,723 - -4% 2%

EDUCATIONAL APPROPRIATIONS PER FTE 3,4

U.S. AVERAGE 2 $6,797 $6,177 $6,260 $6,620 $6,966 1.00 5% 2%

PUERTO RICO $18,181 $15,357 $15,855 $16,067 $15,353 2.20 -4% -16%

WASHINGTON, D.C. $8,962 $9,549 $12,122 $9,366 $11,469 1.65 22% 28%

PUBLIC HIGHER EDUCATION NET TUITION REVENUE PER FTE 3,5

U.S. AVERAGE 2 $5,031 $5,426 $5,685 $5,860 $6,006 1.00 2% 19%

PUERTO RICO $1,510 $1,446 $1,325 $915 $875 0.15 -4% -42%

WASHINGTON, D.C. $8,273 $6,662 $7,068 $7,513 $7,970 1.33 6% -4%

TOTAL EDUCATIONAL REVENUE PER FTE 3,6

U.S. AVERAGE 2 $11,775 $11,549 $11,884 $12,417 $12,907 1.00 4% 10%

PUERTO RICO $19,691 $16,803 $17,179 $16,982 $16,228 1.26 -4% -18%

WASHINGTON, D.C. $17,235 $16,211 $19,190 $16,879 $19,439 1.51 15% 13%

NOTES: 1) Full-time equivalent enrollment equates student credit hours to full-time, academic year students, but excludes medical students.

2) Throughout the report (including here), U.S. totals and averages do not include D.C. and Puerto Rico.

3) Data adjusted for inflation using the Higher Education Cost Adjustment (HECA).

4) Educational appropriations are a measure of state and local support available for public higher education operating expenses including ARRA funds, and exclude appropriations for independent institutions, financial aid for students attending independent institutions, research, hospitals, and medical education.

5) Net tuition revenue is calculated by taking the gross amount of tuition and fees, less state and institutional financial aid, tuition waivers or discounts, and medical student tuition and fees. Net tuition revenue used for capital debt service is included in the net tuition revenue figures above.

6) Total educational revenue is the sum of educational appropriations and net tuition excluding net tuition revenue used for capital debt service.



STATE WEALTH, TAXES, AND ALLOCATIONS FOR HIGHER EDUCATION

Within each state, policies and decisions about the financing of higher education are made in the context of prevailing economic conditions, tax structures, and competing budgetary priorities. Within this context, state policymakers face challenging questions, including:

• What revenue is needed to support important public services?

• What level of taxation will generate that revenue without impairing economic productivity or individual opportunities?

• What combination of public services, spending, and tax policy is most likely to enhance economic growth, future assets, and the quality of life?

• What should the spending priorities be for different public services and investments?

Opinions vary widely about a host of issues concerning taxes, public services, and public investments. Differences of opinion and ideology combine with conditions in the economy and demography to affect state taxing and spending decisions. As these conditions change, policymakers reevaluate taxation and spending policies. That reevaluation may be less likely to lead to changes in those states where tax and/or spending policies are dictated or influenced by provisions of the state constitution rather than by state statute.

No single standard exists to evaluate public policy decisions with respect to funding for higher education. Relevant, comparative information about states can, however, help inform higher education financing decisions. This section explores several types of comparative data and indicators, including population, relative state and personal wealth, tax capacity and effort, and comparative allocations to higher education.12 The data presented here are in nominal terms and are not adjusted for inflation. In all cases, the most recent available data are presented. In some cases, this means a one- to two-year lag from 2015.

Nationally, effective state and local tax rates were nearly unchanged over the last decade. As shown in Table 9, based on a combination of federal government data sources:

• Aggregate state wealth (total taxable resources) per capita increased 56 percent from $41,791 in 2003 to $65,208 in 2013. The effects of the 2008 recession are evident in the total taxable resource decreases in 2009 and 2010. Between 2011 and 2013, total taxable resources increased 23 percent, suggesting a strong rebound from the recession.

• Total state and local tax revenues per capita increased 48.3 percent from $3,111 in 2003 to $4,614 in 2013, which is 5.8 percent higher than the pre-recession high of $4,362.

• As a result of total taxable resources and revenues increasing at different rates, the national aggregate effective state and local tax rate (calculated by tax revenue as a percentage of state wealth) fell for a second year, to a 10-year low of 7.1 percent.

12 Part of this section draws on previous work by Kent Halstead to assemble data and develop indicators for higher education support per capita and relative to wealth (personal income), state tax capacity, and tax effort.


The national aggregate data also show that the proportion of available state and local revenue allocated to higher education has dropped to 5.5 percent, the lowest since the SHEF dataset began in 1990. These data show that despite an economic recovery from the recession, budget challenges remain, and funding levels continue to lag—perhaps due to changes in tax policy or to structural deficits.

TABLE 9 STATE WEALTH, TAX REVENUE, EFFECTIVE TAX RATES, AND HIGHER EDUCATION ALLOCATION; U.S., 2003-2013 (CURRENT UNADJUSTED DOLLARS)

WEALTH, REVENUE, AND TAX RATES ALLOCATION TO HIGHER EDUCATION

ACTUAL TAX REVENUES (ATR)

PER CAPITA

TOTAL TAXABLE RESOURCES (TTR)

PER CAPITA

EFFECTIVE TAX RATE (ATR/TTR)

STATE & LOCAL1 TAX REVENUES PLUS LOTTERY

PROFITS(THOUSANDS)

STATE & LOCAL HIGHER EDUCATION SUPPORT 2

FY (THOUSANDS) (PERCENT)

2003 $3,111 $41,791 7.4% $915,311,067 $69,881,979 7.6%

2004 $3,441 $44,642 7.7% $1,020,012,078 $68,996,335 6.8%

2005 $3,700 $47,747 7.7% $1,108,355,477 $71,952,639 6.5%

2006 $3,996 $50,920 7.8% $1,207,621,567 $76,945,020 6.4%

2007 $4,246 $53,612 7.9% $1,295,451,648 $82,640,978 6.4%

2008 $4,362 $53,071 8.2% $1,342,709,662 $88,724,236 6.6%

2009 $4,136 $50,051 8.3% $1,283,756,839 $87,841,621 6.8%

2010 $4,096 $50,974 8.0% $1,282,430,818 $87,040,985 6.8%

2011 $4,287 $53,017 8.1% $1,351,397,114 $86,991,144 6.4%

2012 $4,412 $58,163 7.6% $1,401,564,615 $80,676,430 5.8%

2013 $4,614 $65,208 7.1% $1,468,834,343 $81,502,527 5.5%

10 YEAR CHANGE

48.3% 56.0% -5.0% 60.5% 16.6% -27.3%

NOTES: 1) Local tax revenues in 2003 are estimates; the following formula was used: FY1999(local/state)+FY2000(local/state)+FY2002(local/state)*FY2003(state).

2) Higher education support is state and local tax and nontax support for general operating expenses of public and independent higher education, including special purpose appropriations for research-agricultural-medical.

SOURCE: Actual tax revenues are state and local tax revenue per capita from U.S. Census Bureau, 2013 Annual Surveys of State and Local Government Finances.

Total taxable resources per capita is from U.S. Treasury Department

State and local tax revenues data is from U.S. Census Bureau; lottery profits data is from North American Association of State and Provincial Lotteries.

In Table 10, the state tax revenue per capita, total taxable resources per capita, and effective tax rates are indexed to the national average in order to indicate the variability across states relative to the national average. Taxable resources per capita vary by a factor of 2.03, from a low of $44,420 in Mississippi to a high of $90,240 in Connecticut. The U.S. average is $65,208. Effective tax rates vary similarly, from a low of 5.5 percent in South Dakota to a high of 11.2 percent in Alaska, while the U.S. average is 7.1 percent.


TABLE 10 TAX REVENUES, TAXABLE RESOURCES, AND EFFECTIVE TAX RATES BY STATE, FY 2013

ACTUAL TAX REVENUES (ATR)

PER CAPITATOTAL TAXABLE RESOURCES (TTR)

PER CAPITAEFFECTIVE TAX RATE

(ATR/TTR)

STATE DOLLARS INDEX DOLLARS INDEX TAX RATE INDEX

ALABAMA $3,046 0.66 $49,528 0.76 6.2% 0.87

ALASKA $9,240 2.00 $82,781 1.27 11.2% 1.58

ARIZONA $3,419 0.74 $46,153 0.71 7.4% 1.05

ARKANSAS $3,637 0.79 $49,574 0.76 7.3% 1.04

CALIFORNIA $5,339 1.16 $68,441 1.05 7.8% 1.10

COLORADO $4,341 0.94 $70,406 1.08 6.2% 0.87

CONNECTICUT $7,265 1.57 $90,240 1.38 8.1% 1.14

DELAWARE $4,609 1.00 $75,258 1.15 6.1% 0.87

FLORIDA $3,386 0.73 $53,671 0.82 6.3% 0.89

GEORGIA $3,324 0.72 $59,202 0.91 5.6% 0.79

HAWAII $5,727 1.24 $55,354 0.85 10.3% 1.46

IDAHO $3,167 0.69 $46,253 0.71 6.8% 0.97

ILLINOIS $5,377 1.17 $69,894 1.07 7.7% 1.09

INDIANA $3,792 0.82 $59,184 0.91 6.4% 0.91

IOWA $4,461 0.97 $64,469 0.99 6.9% 0.98

KANSAS $4,458 0.97 $60,909 0.93 7.3% 1.03

KENTUCKY $3,511 0.76 $51,281 0.79 6.8% 0.97

LOUISIANA $3,798 0.82 $63,720 0.98 6.0% 0.84

MAINE $4,820 1.04 $50,638 0.78 9.5% 1.35

MARYLAND $5,477 1.19 $78,521 1.20 7.0% 0.99

MASSACHUSETTS $5,737 1.24 $87,039 1.33 6.6% 0.93

MICHIGAN $3,751 0.81 $55,683 0.85 6.7% 0.95

MINNESOTA $5,549 1.20 $72,277 1.11 7.7% 1.09

MISSISSIPPI $3,431 0.74 $44,420 0.68 7.7% 1.09

MISSOURI $3,460 0.75 $58,513 0.90 5.9% 0.84

MONTANA $3,795 0.82 $49,480 0.76 7.7% 1.08

NEBRASKA $4,655 1.01 $68,838 1.06 6.8% 0.96

NEVADA $3,877 0.84 $53,689 0.82 7.2% 1.02

NEW HAMPSHIRE $4,194 0.91 $69,803 1.07 6.0% 0.85

NEW JERSEY $6,315 1.37 $84,184 1.29 7.5% 1.06

NEW MEXICO $3,676 0.80 $49,505 0.76 7.4% 1.05

NEW YORK $8,065 1.75 $87,289 1.34 9.2% 1.31

NORTH CAROLINA $3,609 0.78 $56,617 0.87 6.4% 0.90

NORTH DAKOTA $8,826 1.91 $79,763 1.22 11.1% 1.56

OHIO $4,275 0.93 $60,223 0.92 7.1% 1.00

OKLAHOMA $3,495 0.76 $55,691 0.85 6.3% 0.89

OREGON $3,907 0.85 $62,129 0.95 6.3% 0.89

PENNSYLVANIA $4,629 1.00 $64,056 0.98 7.2% 1.02

RHODE ISLAND $5,138 1.11 $66,800 1.02 7.7% 1.09

SOUTH CAROLINA $3,192 0.69 $47,776 0.73 6.7% 0.94

SOUTH DAKOTA $3,510 0.76 $63,916 0.98 5.5% 0.78

TENNESSEE $3,106 0.67 $53,823 0.83 5.8% 0.82

TEXAS $3,871 0.84 $69,628 1.07 5.6% 0.79

UTAH $3,512 0.76 $54,426 0.83 6.5% 0.91

VERMONT $5,425 1.18 $56,869 0.87 9.5% 1.35

VIRGINIA $4,243 0.92 $74,787 1.15 5.7% 0.80

WASHINGTON $4,417 0.96 $68,956 1.06 6.4% 0.91

WEST VIRGINIA $3,896 0.84 $47,908 0.73 8.1% 1.15

WISCONSIN $4,804 1.04 $62,082 0.95 7.7% 1.09

WYOMING $5,800 1.26 $84,151 1.29 6.9% 0.97

U.S. $4,614 1.00 $65,208 1.00 7.1% 1.00

NOTE: Actual tax revenues are state and local tax revenue per capita.

SOURCE: Actual tax revenues are from the U.S. Census Bureau, 2013 Annual Surveys of State and Local Government Finances.

Total taxable resources per capita is from U.S. Treasury Department


Based on federal data sources, Table 11 and Figures 15 and 16 show two measures of state support for higher education (per capita and per $1,000 in personal income) for 2014, by state. Per capita support for higher education averages $272 nationally and ranges from $82 in New Hampshire to $662 in Wyoming. When measured relative to personal income, support for higher education per $1,000 of personal income varies from $1.56 in New Hampshire to $12.71 in New Mexico. Nationally, state and local support for higher education per $1,000 of personal income was $5.90 in 2014.

These comparative statistics reflect interstate differences in wealth, population characteristics and density, postsecondary enrollment rates, the relative size of the public and independent higher education sectors, student mobility, and numerous other factors. Poorer states may lag the national average in per capita support, but exceed the national average in support per $1,000 of personal income. Similarly, sparsely populated states sometimes exceed the national average in both per capita support and per $1,000 of personal income.

Table 11 and Figure 17 also provide an analysis of state support as a percentage of state budgets in 2013. While such statistics show relative investments in higher education, they do not necessarily indicate the relative “priority” or valuation of higher education by each state. They do reflect the different paths states have taken in financing a set of public purposes as they assess need, urgency, and financing options. As previously discussed, tuition revenue frequently (but not universally) has increased when state and local sources of support have not kept pace with enrollment growth and inflation. The data in Table 7, indicating a decrease in the effective state tax rate combined with the pressures created by growing higher education enrollment, increasing demands for elementary and secondary funding, rising Medicaid costs, and other factors, help explain the stress on state budgets and policymakers. Starting with California’s Proposition 13 in 1978, many states saw limits on taxation and, sometimes, mandatory spending for programs such as K-12 education and correction placed in their constitutions. These factors are unique to each state and affect what states are able to devote to supporting higher education. States that rely heavily on revenue from retail sales taxes may not yet have adjusted to changes wrought by online shopping and a shift from purchase of goods to purchase of services.

Pursuing the goals of assuring higher education access, determining appropriate levels of support, and sorting out “who pays, who benefits,” in the context of state needs, resources, and other policy objectives, remains a complex task in every state.


TABLE 11 PERSPECTIVES ON STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT HIGHER EDUCATION FUNDING EFFORT BY STATE, FY 2014 AND FY 2013

FISCAL 2014 FISCAL 2014 FISCAL 2013

STATE

HIGHER EDUCATION

SUPPORT PER CAPITA (FY14)

INDEXED TO U.S. AVERAGE

HIGHER EDUCATION

SUPPORT

PER $1000 OF PERSONAL

INCOME (FY14)

INDEXED TO U.S. AVERAGE

TAX REVENUES AND LOTTERY

PROFITS (THOUSANDS

FY13)

HIGHER EDUCATION

SUPPORT (THOUSANDS FY13)

ALLOCATION TO HIGHER EDUCATION

ALABAMA $298 1.10 $7.96 1.35 $14,724,783 $1,408,357 9.6%

ALASKA $527 1.94 $9.76 1.66 $6,792,745 $373,454 5.5%

ARIZONA $249 0.92 $6.57 1.12 $22,832,910 $1,605,117 7.0%

ARKANSAS $349 1.28 $9.22 1.56 $10,854,596 $1,045,760 9.6%

CALIFORNIA $334 1.23 $6.68 1.13 $205,938,383 $11,641,914 5.7%

COLORADO $138 0.51 $2.82 0.48 $23,006,173 $692,521 3.0%

CONNECTICUT $283 1.04 $4.37 0.74 $26,437,581 $887,708 3.4%

DELAWARE $243 0.90 $5.25 0.89 $4,503,853 $216,493 4.8%

FLORIDA $197 0.73 $4.62 0.78 $67,623,988 $3,338,709 4.9%

GEORGIA $276 1.02 $7.09 1.20 $34,142,510 $2,624,294 7.7%

HAWAII $374 1.38 $8.12 1.38 $8,041,176 $526,180 6.5%

IDAHO $245 0.90 $6.66 1.13 $5,153,176 $384,659 7.5%

ILLINOIS $382 1.41 $8.01 1.36 $70,061,959 $4,401,290 6.3%

INDIANA $257 0.95 $6.49 1.10 $25,144,302 $1,550,124 6.2%

IOWA $288 1.06 $6.42 1.09 $13,872,227 $851,199 6.1%

KANSAS $337 1.24 $7.50 1.27 $12,977,077 $989,284 7.6%

KENTUCKY $275 1.01 $7.36 1.25 $15,655,380 $1,206,977 7.7%

LOUISIANA $242 0.89 $5.76 0.98 $17,727,185 $1,174,062 6.6%

MAINE $204 0.75 $5.02 0.85 $6,456,209 $265,872 4.1%

MARYLAND $343 1.26 $6.33 1.07 $33,391,828 $1,935,107 5.8%

MASSACHUSETTS $199 0.73 $3.39 0.57 $39,293,258 $1,255,182 3.2%

MICHIGAN $220 0.81 $5.40 0.92 $37,856,443 $2,111,894 5.6%

MINNESOTA $256 0.94 $5.22 0.88 $30,211,002 $1,285,247 4.3%

MISSISSIPPI $343 1.26 $9.96 1.69 $10,262,494 $978,132 9.5%

MISSOURI $181 0.67 $4.35 0.74 $21,198,657 $1,071,105 5.1%

MONTANA $228 0.84 $5.72 0.97 $3,865,684 $208,308 5.4%

NEBRASKA $438 1.61 $9.21 1.56 $8,737,829 $792,027 9.1%

NEVADA $171 0.63 $4.20 0.71 $10,817,783 $472,368 4.4%

NEW HAMPSHIRE $82 0.30 $1.56 0.26 $5,625,496 $85,622 1.5%

NEW JERSEY $244 0.90 $4.24 0.72 $57,164,438 $2,082,478 3.6%

NEW MEXICO $471 1.74 $12.71 2.16 $7,709,840 $951,690 12.3%

NEW YORK $306 1.13 $5.51 0.93 $161,537,934 $5,843,669 3.6%

NORTH CAROLINA $386 1.42 $9.85 1.67 $36,017,149 $3,962,250 11.0%

NORTH DAKOTA $554 2.04 $9.93 1.68 $6,392,230 $343,806 5.4%

OHIO $196 0.72 $4.64 0.79 $50,267,784 $2,202,969 4.4%

OKLAHOMA $284 1.04 $6.50 1.10 $13,526,032 $1,086,611 8.0%

OREGON $210 0.77 $5.10 0.86 $15,883,818 $771,156 4.9%

PENNSYLVANIA $137 0.51 $2.88 0.49 $60,202,806 $1,741,590 2.9%

RHODE ISLAND $158 0.58 $3.26 0.55 $5,781,358 $163,711 2.8%

SOUTH CAROLINA $202 0.74 $5.50 0.93 $15,542,439 $972,623 6.3%

SOUTH DAKOTA $244 0.90 $5.38 0.91 $3,073,425 $196,230 6.4%

TENNESSEE $242 0.89 $5.99 1.02 $20,517,358 $1,455,169 7.1%

TEXAS $315 1.16 $6.90 1.17 $103,587,006 $7,817,460 7.5%

UTAH $271 1.00 $7.20 1.22 $10,188,214 $748,759 7.3%

VERMONT $148 0.54 $3.19 0.54 $3,422,112 $89,341 2.6%

VIRGINIA $217 0.80 $4.30 0.73 $35,533,290 $1,735,056 4.9%

WASHINGTON $222 0.82 $4.48 0.76 $30,932,152 $1,372,858 4.4%

WEST VIRGINIA $277 1.02 $7.66 1.30 $7,224,929 $546,189 7.6%

WISCONSIN $275 1.01 $6.21 1.05 $27,744,184 $1,622,394 5.8%

WYOMING $662 2.44 $12.13 2.06 $3,379,158 $417,550 12.4%

U.S. $272 1.00 $5.90 1.00 $1,468,834,343 $81,502,527 5.5%

NOTE: Higher education support is state and local tax and nontax support for public and independent higher education, including special purpose appropriations for research-agricultural-medical.


Population and personal income data is from U.S. Census Bureau and Bureau of Economic Analysis.

State and local tax revenues data is from the U.S. Census Bureau; lottery profits data is from North American Association of State and Provincial Lotteries.


FIGURE 15HIGHER EDUCATION SUPPORT PER CAPITA BY STATE, FY 2014

FIGURE 16HIGHER EDUCATION SUPPORT PER $1,000 OF PERSONAL INCOME BY STATE, FY 2014

NE

W H

AM

PSH

IRE

PE

NN

SYLV

AN

IA

CO

LOR

AD

O

VE

RM

ON

T

RH

OD

E IS

LAN

D

NE

VA

DA

MIS

SOU

RI

OH

IO

FLO

RID

A

MA

SSA

CH

USE

TT

S

SOU

TH

CA

RO

LIN

A

MA

INE

OR

EG

ON

VIR

GIN

IA

MIC

HIG

AN

WA

SHIN

GT

ON

MO

NT

AN

A

LOU

ISIA

NA

TE

NN

ESS

EE

DE

LAW

AR

E

SOU

TH

DA

KO

TA

NE

W J

ER

SEY

IDA

HO

AR

IZO

NA

MIN

NE

SOT

A

IND

IAN

A

UT

AH

U.S

.

WIS

CO

NSI

N

KE

NT

UC

KY

GE

OR

GIA

WE

ST V

IRG

INIA

CO

NN

EC

TIC

UT

OK

LAH

OM

A

IOW

A

ALA

BA

MA

NE

W Y

OR

K

TE

XA

S

CA

LIFO

RN

IA

KA

NSA

S

MIS

SISS

IPP

I

MA

RY

LAN

D

AR

KA

NSA

S

HA

WA

II

ILLI

NO

IS

NO

RT

H C

AR

OLI

NA

NE

BR

ASK

A

NE

W M

EX

ICO

ALA

SKA

NO

RT

H D

AK

OT

A

WY

OM

ING

$662

HIGHER EDUCATION SUPPORT PER CAPITA BY STATE, FY 2014FIGURE 15

$0

$100

$200

$300

$400

$500

$600

$272

$82

HIGHER EDUCATION SUPPORT PER $1,000 OF PERSONAL INCOME BY STATE, FY 2014FIGURE 12

NE

W H

AM

PSH

IRE

CO

LOR

AD

O

PE

NN

SYLV

AN

IA

VE

RM

ON

T

RH

OD

E IS

LAN

D

MA

SSA

CH

USE

TT

S

NE

VA

DA

NE

W J

ER

SEY

VIR

GIN

IA

MIS

SOU

RI

CO

NN

EC

TIC

UT

WA

SHIN

GT

ON

FLO

RID

A

OH

IO

MA

INE

OR

EG

ON

MIN

NE

SOT

A

DE

LAW

AR

E

SOU

TH

DA

KO

TA

MIC

HIG

AN

SOU

TH

CA

RO

LIN

A

NE

W Y

OR

K

MO

NT

AN

A

LOU

ISIA

NA

U.S

.

TE

NN

ESS

EE

WIS

CO

NSI

N

MA

RY

LAN

D

IOW

A

IND

IAN

A

OK

LAH

OM

A

AR

IZO

NA

IDA

HO

CA

LIFO

RN

IA

TE

XA

S

GE

OR

GIA

UT

AH

KE

NT

UC

KY

KA

NSA

S

WE

ST V

IRG

INIA

ALA

BA

MA

ILLI

NO

IS

HA

WA

II

NE

BR

ASK

A

AR

KA

NSA

S

ALA

SKA

NO

RT

H C

AR

OLI

NA

NO

RT

H D

AK

OT

A

MIS

SISS

IPP

I

WY

OM

ING

NE

W M

EX

ICO

$0

$2

$4

$6

$8

$10

$12

$1.6

$12.7

$5.9




NOTE: Higher education support is state and local tax and nontax support for public and independent higher education,including special purpose appropriations for research-agricultural-medical.




FIGURE 17PERCENT OF TAX REVENUES ALLOCATED TO HIGHER EDUCATION, FY 2013

PERCENT OF TAX REVENUES ALLOCATED TO HIGHER EDUCATION, FY 2014FIGURE 13

NE

W H

AM

PSH

IRE

VE

RM

ON

T

RH

OD

E IS

LAN

D

PE

NN

SYLV

AN

IA

CO

LOR

AD

O

MA

SSA

CH

USE

TT

S

CO

NN

EC

TIC

UT

NE

W Y

OR

K

NE

W J

ER

SEY

MA

INE

MIN

NE

SOT

A

NE

VA

DA

OH

IO

WA

SHIN

GT

ON

DE

LAW

AR

E

OR

EG

ON

VIR

GIN

IA

FLO

RID

A

MIS

SOU

RI

NO

RT

H D

AK

OT

A

MO

NT

AN

A

ALA

SKA

U.S

.

MIC

HIG

AN

CA

LIFO

RN

IA

MA

RY

LAN

D

WIS

CO

NSI

N

IOW

A

IND

IAN

A

SOU

TH

CA

RO

LIN

A

ILLI

NO

IS

SOU

TH

DA

KO

TA

HA

WA

II

LOU

ISIA

NA

AR

IZO

NA

TE

NN

ESS

EE

UT

AH

IDA

HO

TE

XA

S

WE

ST V

IRG

INIA

KA

NSA

S

GE

OR

GIA

KE

NT

UC

KY

OK

LAH

OM

A

NE

BR

ASK

A

MIS

SISS

IPP

I

ALA

BA

MA

AR

KA

NSA

S

NO

RT

H C

AR

OLI

NA

NE

W M

EX

ICO

WY

OM

ING

0%

2%

4%

6%

8%

10%

12%

1.5%

12.4%

5.5%



State and local tax revenues data is from the U.S. Census Bureau; lottery profits data is from North American Association of State and Provincial Lotteries.


CONCLUSION

This report has summarized higher education enrollment and funding data for 2015. For the third consecutive year, state and local support grew—this time, more significantly to $6,966 in constant dollars. Further, the share of total revenue per student coming from net tuition revenue declined for the second straight year to 46.5 percent in 2015. These two measures clearly indicate continued economic recovery; however, as it is for many American families, higher education’s economic recovery remains precarious. Despite two years of per student funding increases, educational appropriations per student are 15.3 percent below 2008 pre-recession levels. Only four states have increased per student funding over this time period. Coupling the rapid tuition increases that occurred to offset cuts in state and local support and recent reinvestment by state and local governments, total educational revenues per student is above pre-recession levels, up 1.4 percent from 2008. However, 19 states remain below pre-recession levels in total educational revenue. While, on the whole, the total revenue per student has been restored, a much larger share of this revenue is paid by students and families through tuition. Many of these tuition charges are financed through student loans, which along with the shifting demography of American students to include more from lower-income groups, underscores why affordability concerns have become much more prevalent since 2008.

Initial estimates from the FY 2016 Grapevine survey appropriations for higher education show continued growth overall of 4.1 percent in nominal terms, with most states appropriating more for higher education than in the prior year. However, some states are reducing budgets this spring and there is evidence that other states will make cuts in 2017 due to revenue shortfalls.

In the past decade, two recessions and the larger macroeconomic challenges facing the United States have created what some are calling the “new normal” for state funding for public higher education and other public services. In the new normal, retirement and health care costs simultaneously drive up the cost of higher education and compete with education for limited public resources. The new normal no longer expects to see the level of recovery of state support for higher education that occurred repeatedly in the last half of the 20th century. The new normal expects students and their families to continue to make increasingly greater financial sacrifices in order to complete a postsecondary education. The new normal expects schools and colleges to find ways of increasing productivity and to absorb ever larger budget cuts, while increasing degree production without compromising quality.

At the same time, more and more states are adopting daring completion and attainment goals which will only be met by better serving those students that have typically been underserved—first generation, low-income, and minority students—students who are less likely to understand how to navigate the higher education environment and may require additional services and supports to succeed. To do so with restrained resources from appropriations will be challenging. Somehow, the nation and its educators must come to grips with these realities and create effective responses to them. Colleges and universities must find ways to reduce the cost of instruction, improve student progress and reduce the time to a degree, while improving student learning and increasing the number of students who graduate ready to be productive citizens. Parents, students, institutions, and states must make tough decisions about priorities—what investments are essential for a better future and where can we and should we reduce spending on non-essentials in order to secure what is essential?


But avoiding bad judgments can be difficult when facing tough choices. Institutions may cut too many quality corners or compete with each other to raise revenue from “new” sources (such as out-of-state or international students) rather than make difficult decisions about priorities or the extra effort required to create and effectively implement innovative practices. Policymakers may overestimate how many students can be well educated within existing resources, or make unrealistic assumptions about the potential for technology and new delivery methods to rapidly become a panacea offsetting the long-term negative effects of budget cuts or tuition increases on access to higher education and the quality of our workforce. Or the better-off public may be lulled into thinking that the American economy can get by with limited opportunities and 20th century standards for educational attainment, so long as their own families are well educated. The educational and economic edge the United States once enjoyed in comparison to other nations has been eroding. Sound judgment about priorities and extra measures of commitment and creativity are needed in order to regain our educational and economic momentum.

The data and analysis of this and future SHEF reports are intended to help higher education leaders and state policymakers focus on how discrete, year-to-year decisions fit into broader patterns of change over time, and to help them make decisions in the coming years that will meet the long-term needs of the American people to educate more Americans to higher standards than at any other time in our nation’s history.

STATE HIGHER EDUCATION EXECUTIVE OFFICERS

3035 CENTER GREEN DRIVE, SUITE 100, BOULDER, COLORADO, 80301 303.541.1600 • SHEEO.org

http://www.sheeo.org

shef: fy 2015 - welcome | sheeosheeo.org/sites/default/files/project-files/sheeo_fy15... · ·...

Documents